Child Abuse

Baroness Walmsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures are in place to ensure that Connexions personal advisers are able to deal with children who are suspected to be at risk of abuse.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, besides their existing professional qualifications, Connexions personal advisers receive additional training to deal with children at risk, including discussion of child protection issues and referral protocols. This covers how best to work with other agencies working with children at risk, such as social services.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that all Connexions personnel and the managers of Connexions partnerships should be obliged to undertake training in child abuse—in particular how to recognise signs of abuse and neglect since most of their clients are very vulnerable children? Can she give the House a date by which all Connexions partnerships should have a child protection policy and a designated individual with responsibility for child protection in place?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the partnerships are operating in such a way to ensure as much training as possible for personal advisers but are working with social services so that each vulnerable young person has a designated individual. That may not be the Connexions individual. For young people leaving care, for example, it could be the person already designated as their key worker. One of the most important factors, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, is to ensure that Connexions develops links between the seven government agencies and departments involved so that each young person who is vulnerable is assigned an individual, not necessarily the person concerned. Training is taking place. I cannot give the noble Baroness a precise date. I shall write to her if I can obtain that information.

Universities: Science and Engineering

Lord Sheldon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to increase the proportion of students at university studying science and engineering.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are working to promote science and engineering as study and career options through a variety of initiatives, including Science Year and Science and Engineering Ambassadors. We are also considering the recommendations of the recent report by Sir Gareth Roberts on the supply of science, engineering and technology skills.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As scientists and engineers do not enjoy the same position here as they do in so many other countries, is there not a particular problem in our universities? So long as great attention was paid to the quality of scientists and engineers in universities, there was always the hope that at least some of our pre-eminence might be retained for the future. That is now in serious doubt, and this matter must be examined at the highest level.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend raises important issues. I must say to him, however, that there are more young people in the UK with science and engineering degrees than in most OECD countries. It is important to recognise that, of the G8 nations, only France has more.
	We know that there is a difference in the way in which young people are choosing to go forward into science. I fully recognise the noble Lord's concerns about the number of young people who are entering the sciences. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that we have seen a dramatic increase in the numbers of people choosing to study, for example, computer science. But in some subjects—engineering in particular and chemical engineering, an area about which I am particularly concerned—we have seen the number of students decrease. It is worth noting that between 1994–95 and 1999–2000 there was an increase of 13.9 per cent in the number of biologists.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work done by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle at WISE—Women in Science and Engineering? Is that initiative continuing, and are we seeing any growth in the number of women entering the field of science and engineering?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give precise figures for the number of women entering science and engineering. If I have that information, I shall be delighted to pass it on to the noble Baroness. We are funding a number of activities to support women in science and engineering, and we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, to look at how government can take an even stronger approach. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, this is an important matter. Indeed, one of the planks of our Science Ambassadors programme is to ensure that we have good role models for our young people, particularly for young women who might be considering applying for a career in engineering, to enable them to see that it could be for them.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that mathematics is the key to studying science and engineering at university? Is she aware of the worries among, for example, the London Mathematical Society about the drop-off in the numbers taking A-level mathematics as a result of the introduction of Curriculum 2000?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I understand it, the number of people entering university to study mathematics has increased by 3.3 per cent. The purpose behind Curriculum 2000 and other initiatives is to enable young people to have a range of opportunities to study maths; for example, AS qualifications in maths or further maths and the free-standing maths units; and from September 2001 young people will have the opportunity to study for a new qualification known as "AS use of mathematics"—from which I might have benefited had I been the right age at the right time. I take nothing away from the noble Baroness's question. It is important to ensure that we have mathematicians coming through the system—hence the efforts that we are putting in to ensure that people continue to study mathematics and, of course, become mathematics teachers.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what steps is my noble friend taking to work with the Engineering Council and the various institutes to further the need for young people to go into engineering?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Engineering Council and others have been involved with us. The Association for Science Education and the Royal Society have also been working closely with us, particularly on the Science and Engineering Ambassadors programme, which is designed to ensure that young people have the opportunity to meet others who have gone into science and engineering and, as importantly, to understand the relevance of science for many different careers. We have produced videos that show young people the use of science in everything from designing new films for television or the big screen right the way through to the manufacture of beauty products, in which science is key to ensuring that we can provide women in particular with some important products.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the biggest problems is the lack of inspirational science teaching in schools? How do the Government intend to get more specialist teachers who can inspire young people to be excited about science and engineering?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have a manifesto commitment to introduce a national centre for excellence in science teaching. We consulted on the idea earlier this year. As the noble Baroness will be aware, everything depends on the outcome of the spending review. We are looking to negotiate with a number of potential sponsors to work with us. We have some truly inspirational science teachers, but I recognise that we need to do more to enhance the quality, knowledge, skills, curriculum and resources available to help our science teachers to talk with young people, particularly about some of the science issues that are currently on people's minds. We hope that the national centre will be a key tool in enabling that.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as part of their widening access programme, do the Government have any plans to include special programmes to attract young women from areas where there is no tradition of attending university? There is a tremendous amount of talent to be tapped among women and men, but special activities will be needed to bring women into that important area.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very important to ensure that the access programme attracts young women into science. However, the issue begins even earlier. We need to look at the strategy in key stages 2 and 3. That is under way. It is important to produce a framework for teaching science that supports learning and teaching for all our pupils and, as I said earlier, ensures that young women in particular have the opportunities to be able to consider science and engineering as real options for their careers.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it is pleasing to hear of Britain's pre-eminence in science and engineering in Europe, but what is the comparison with Japan and the United States?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have those comparisons. I have only the information about our standing within the G7 nations. It is important to recognise that Britain has a strong position in science and engineering across the globe. I am sure that every noble Lord wants to ensure that that continues in the best possible way. It is why we developed this year as Science Year: to enable all our young people across education to recognise the relevance and importance of science. The associations with which we have been working are very concerned to ensure that we have graduates coming through who can be our scientists of the future, particularly in some of the areas that I mentioned earlier, such as chemical engineering. We are beginning to be concerned that young people consider those subjects and understand what careers chemical and other engineering professions can offer them.

Pensioners Living Abroad: Payments

Lord Mackie of Benshie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is any reason other than economy for withholding pension increases from British citizens living in certain Commonwealth countries.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, annual upratings have never been generally paid abroad. Exceptions apply under the EC's social security regulations, which apply to pensioners who have a UK pension and live in the European Economic Area, and under reciprocal social security agreements with other countries that allow increases to be paid there. Pensions are not uprated in any other country.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, but I do not consider it satisfactory. It is extraordinary that, although someone who goes to live in the south of France, enjoying themselves on the Riviera, can draw the full increases as they come along, as can someone on the United States side of the Niagara Falls, those on the Canadian side cannot. That is manifestly unjust. I know that it would cost money to change the situation, but is it right for one section of the community who do not live in privileged areas to pay for the poorest sections in this country? Should that not be paid for by all of us? Will the Government consider starting the process by at least paying the increases to pensioners living abroad—most of whom go there to be beside their children and grandchildren—when they reach 75, which is when they begin to need it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the first point—the unfairness, as the noble Lord perceives it, between pensioners in the United States and those in Canada—the fact is that we have a reciprocal agreement with the United States whereas we do not have one with Canada. Canada was offered one but rejected it back in the early 1970s; in 1972, I think. On the second point, uprating, the fact is that the basic state retirement pension is uprated to compensate pensioners living in this country for the increases in the cost of living in this country. That is the reason. It therefore seems to me perfectly proper that it is not paid elsewhere, other than where there are reciprocal agreements or, as in the EU, reciprocal arrangements for pensioners.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether, when people emigrate to one of these countries, they are informed that they will not receive their pension?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords; I have a copy of the leaflet here. It makes clear in very strong terms that the retirement pension can normally be paid to people living anywhere and that annual increases may be payable to people living in the EEA or in a list of countries provided. However, it goes on to say that, otherwise,
	"you will not get annual increases in benefit if you go to live outside the UK or one of the above-mentioned countries".
	It is very clear, in very large letters.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while appreciating that reciprocal arrangements are best, is it not true that these people have earned their pension while working in this country and that they are therefore entitled to full benefits? They are British citizens albeit they live abroad in one of those countries.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, I do not agree. The benefits have not been paid for by the individual pensioners. The first point is that the state retirement pension of current pensioners is funded by current taxpayers. It is not a funded scheme. It is contributory only in the sense that one's contributions entitle one to a pension; they do not necessarily entitle one to an uprating. The second point is that the national insurance contributions paid by today's married pensioner who had been on average earnings for his entire working life fall far short of what he is currently receiving in retirement pension. He does not pay for it.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the 1970s, there was considerable resentment in the Commonwealth over the terms on which we entered the European Union? Is she aware—as she will be if she reads the Sun or the Daily Telegraph—that the effects of that resentment are still with us? Does she think that this is a sensible time to increase it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the reciprocal arrangements, apart from those associated with the EU, were made largely in the 1950s and 1960s. As far as I am aware, although some commitments took some time to deliver, no new commitment has been made in the past 20 to 25 years. We are in this case following the policy of successive governments of the past 20 to 25 years.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, is she aware that many Members of this House and of the other place have heard the answer she has just given, in exactly the same terms, from successive governments? We have long thought that those answers are not good enough, and that feeling is now stronger than ever.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord's views have not been shared in the past by this House or by the other place. There were votes on this issue in the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. On all three votes, under different governments, this House and the other place voted by an overwhelming majority to continue the current policy.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the Minister says that the proposal made to the Canadians in the 1970s was rejected. Does she agree, if it does not try her patience too much, that perhaps the time has come to try again?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords. We believe that the pension uprating increases are to compensate for the cost of living increases in this country. Pensioners who are living in this country need them. We have no knowledge about the cost of living increases in the other 150 countries to which UK pensioners have retired. I therefore do not think it appropriate to single out Canada or any other country in that respect.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the case of Annette Carson, who took the issue to court on behalf of the one half million "frozen pensioners"? She lost the case and was ordered to pay costs. Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to pursue her for costs?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the Carson case except to say that the Government were obviously pleased to receive the favourable judgment of the High Court, which shows that our policy is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend offer any estimate of the cost of conceding parity?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords; £400 million—nearly half a billion pounds.
	Racism

Lord Lyell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions that British society is institutionally racist and that all, or almost all, Britons are racist.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions expressed his personal views on the radio programme. The Government would not agree with the suggestion that everyone in Britain is racist. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will set out his vision of a modern approach to tackling racism in a speech that he will give this evening to the Social Market Foundation.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am most grateful for that fulfilling Answer from the noble Lord, and delighted to hear that the comments were only the personal thoughts of a very eminent gentleman, Sir David Calvert-Smith. However, does the Minister agree that many people, including me, were concerned when Sir David went on to say that various—I hope I get this right—"stereotypical assumptions" are made when dealing with subjects such as asylum and sport? I hope that all members of the Government have been quite politically correct in the past few weeks when watching events on television, including Wimbledon. Have they been? Was it only the personal view of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I did seek to say that. I wish that I could connect more positively with the point on Wimbledon, but unfortunately time has not allowed me to watch much of it. The real issue, I think, is perhaps the need to move away from paying over-much attention to what was or was not said in a journalistic interview, to the serious issue of how we make our public services appropriate for the future by ensuring that they deliver proper and fair services to all the people of Britain. On previous occasions this House has celebrated the fact that we are a multicultural society. It is crucial, therefore, that public services are appropriate to all residents of Britain. That is why this House, with great wisdom, passed the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, staying with sport for a second, my noble friend will be aware that some of the worst examples of racism and xenophobia in recent years have been displayed by England football supporters. Will he therefore pay tribute to the behaviour of the England fans in Japan, who have contributed by their exemplary behaviour to the success of the tournament despite their disappointment that it is Brazil rather than England which is in the final on Sunday?

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords. I think that we all celebrated the success of the England team as far as it went and were delighted that English fans were a credit to the nation rather than the reverse, as might have happened if past events had been repeated. I also think that we as a country have seen considerable progress in Association Football in eradicating some of the quite appalling racist abuse that used to occur on our terraces. However, we are not completely free of that, and I think that there are still one or two clubs that need to look to their laurels in that respect. Nevertheless, we have moved considerably forward in ensuring that that type of behaviour is no longer seen as acceptable.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say what progress the Government have made in producing race equality schemes, as all public authorities are obliged to do, and what advice has been given by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to local authorities on the race equality schemes that they should also produce?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, all designated public bodies were obliged in April to introduce their implementation plans under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. While I have not carried out a full check on compliance, I shall do so as that fits with one of my current responsibilities. Similarly, I know that advice has been given to local authorities, I think by both the LGA and the CRE, to ensure that they approach this responsibility not only with vigour, but much more imaginatively than simply seeking to comply on paper with the Act. I look forward to future discussions with the LGA about the progress being made across local government, and to ensuring that best practice is mirrored and picked up rapidly by those who can benefit from learning it.

Lord Ouseley: My Lords—

Lord Renton: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, may we hear from the Cross Benches?

Lord Ouseley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of two public attitude surveys which have been conducted in the past two years by MORI on behalf of, first, Reader's Digest, and, secondly, the Commission for Racial Equality, in which the majority of respondents across a broad range of people in the UK indicated that they believed that racial prejudice was on the increase? In other responses they alluded to the fact that there were many more asylum seekers and immigrants in the country than was actually the case. When asked how they formed their views, they said that they had heard that said by politicians and the media.
	Will the Minister respond to the issue of how we report race matters through the media? How do the Government seek to counter negative and sensationalised reporting which does as much damage to race relations as racist attitudes? Will he also comment on the responses of government through education in dealing with the needs of all our young people in the next generation to ensure that they are properly educated about cultures, values and people other than themselves so that they have respect for, knowledge of and appreciation of each other? I think that the Minister would agree that that is clearly important in building good race relations and in acknowledging the many people in this country who make a positive contribution to race relations. Education plays a very important part in ensuring that this country maintains its tradition of valuing fairness, equality and equal treatment for all.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the specific reference to MORI does not immediately leap to mind. However, one that does leap to mind is the statement from recollection that some 86 per cent of people in Britain believe that you do not need to be white to be a British citizen. That may sound an obvious statement but it is important that that proportion of the population is quite clear that a black person or a person of Asian origin is as much a member of British society as anyone who is white.
	Having said that, the evidence that the public have become more tolerant and that public bodies have become better in this regard does not for a second mean that we have reached the stage where we want to be in the future. There is considerable need for further progress as regards a range of public bodies and private organisations to ensure that they look at how policies are formed, that they recognise the diversity of our society and to ensure that employment practices are fair. I am sorry that I cannot give noble Lords more of an idea of David Blunkett's speech which will be made this evening, but it will set out a clear stance on that matter and will state quite clearly his commitment and the Government's commitment to eradicating racism and to equality.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the welcome replies which the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Lyell, will he confirm that there is a long-established convention that those holding full-time, non-political legal appointments should avoid making controversial public statements?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is not my area of expertise but I can well believe that the noble Lord is correct. I am sure that anyone who has experienced the joy of finding that they are front page news reflects afterwards whether they quite captured in their interview exactly what with hindsight they would have wished to express.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Sir David Calvert-Smith was being interviewed in his capacity as the Director of Public Prosecutions and not in a private capacity? Is it not a gross slander, libel and insult to the people of this country to be described by a very senior public official as all being racist? Is it not a fact that the people of this country, particularly those working people living in terraced houses and semi-detached houses in our cities up and down the country, have done a marvellous job in assimilating people of different cultures from many parts of the world? Is it not a fact that what we should be doing is praising them, not condemning them?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, although I did not hear the programme I read a transcript of it. It is quite clear that Sir David was speaking in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the CPS. Nevertheless, he expressed his personal views. They were certainly not the views of the Government. The Government's view, and my own, is that it is quite clearly untrue that everyone in Britain is racist. That is a nonsense. On the other hand, neither is it true to say that no one in Britain is racist.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I have the privilege of coming from an area in the London Borough of Brent where no group enjoys a racial majority. Will the Minister take note that that situation does wonders for racial tolerance?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, having enjoyed working in the London Borough of Brent for some years when it was becoming a rich, multicultural area, I agree with the noble Earl.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that most racism is entirely unconscious on the part of the person practising it? Is he aware that in some London schools no black adult can visit if he or she is not wearing a sharp business suit or the female equivalent without it being assumed that they are either the cleaner or constitute a one-parent family? That is an element of racism which does exist and which we should take account of.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that much racism, but not all, can be unconscious. Some is conscious and deliberate. I was not aware of the point that he made about the mode of dress in certain London schools.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions actually made the statement based on the empirical data that he found in the job that he is doing? There is a lot to be said for studying his report.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is why it is important to make the distinction between the particular words that caught the media's attention—the statement that everyone in Britain is racist—and the fact that Sir David was responding to two reports on practices in the Crown Prosecution Service which quite clearly demonstrated that management had failed to manage staff in ways that did not allow segregation to take place. There was strong concern that areas of prosecution decision-making could not categorically be seen not to have been tinged by racial assumptions. There were issues which had to be attended to. That is why Sir David gave a commitment on the programme to introduce changes which are needed in the Crown Prosecution Service.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [HL]

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 50 [Attendance targets]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Leave out Clause 50.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government should have an expectation that pupils will attend school at all times. The attendance target, therefore, for children attending school should be 100 per cent. For the purposes of my amendment, I emphasise the word "target". It is no more and no less than a target. If the Secretary of State does not have a target requiring all children in our country to attend school so far as possible at all times, that would be a pretty poor do. The Government should expect no less.
	For schools with poor attendance records, it is a function of the governing body and the head teacher to analyse the problem, to work—where possible—with parents and to develop strategies to improve attendance records. As part of that, and as part of reaching the desired goal of 100 per cent attendance, the school may adopt incremental targets as a management tool to improve the situation.
	In the more serious cases of non-attendance, it may be necessary to encourage enforcement of the law, especially where parents wilfully collude with or condone the absence from school of their children. In the case of authorised and unauthorised absences, I refer to the statistics quoted by the Minister in Committee. She said:
	"In the last academic year, 0.7 per cent of half days were missed due to unauthorised absenteeism but 6.5 per cent of half days were missed due to authorised absenteeism".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 982.]
	We know where the problem lies: with absences that are authorised by our schools. That suggests that the problem lies with the schools.
	Authorised absences are those days that are taken out of school by a pupil where the school regards the reasons for absence as unavoidable—for example, an accident or illness—or where the reason for the absence is so serious that the school takes the view that time out of school is reasonable and appropriate; I refer, for example, to a death in the family. Unauthorised absences are those where a child does not attend school, with or without parental permission, and where the reason for such an absence is inexcusable. I use the examples given by my noble friend Lord Lucas at col. 983 on 23rd May, which were that a child might be out buying a hamster or taking a skiing holiday. They rank as unauthorised absences. Any school authorising such an absence should be subject to an adverse report from the inspectorate. Information about all school absences must be included in the school's annual report.
	The notion that the Secretary of State can set targets for about 24,000 schools in the land is ludicrous. School governors should make a school's policy for authorised and unauthorised absences and they should make it clear to all parents. Local education authorities and the Government should have only one target for schools; that is, that children should attend at all times.
	Schools and their governors should of course remain accountable to parents, the community and, more formally, to the inspectorate. I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it is realistic to set targets for improved attendance in LEAs and individual schools, particularly in the most socially deprived areas. However, it is not—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—necessary to spell that out in legislation. The only acceptable attendance record is, as she said, 100 per cent.
	My own experience of sitting for 20 years or so as a juvenile court chairman in socially deprived areas leaves me with little belief in the effectiveness of draconian measures to fine or imprison parents of truanting children, although I accept that that may work in some instances. If parents physically or verbally abuse teachers, firm deterrent penalties are required.
	By the time a child gets to court, usually as a result of an offence, the truancy pattern is firmly established and parents are bewildered and unable to exert any authority. In other words, the prevailing anti-school culture of that area has taken a firm hold.
	One of the facts that emerged from the Minister's reply to my Written Question on 24th April is that across the whole range of LEAs—from those with the worst average attendance figures to those with the best—truancy in the worst schools in each area is about six times as high as that in the best schools in the same area. That is why more imaginative and innovative schemes are so badly needed. One way—my noble friend Lord Northbourne, who is not yet in his place, has been an advocate of this approach for many years—is to start working with and supporting deprived families from the earliest possible age. We shall come to that later, so I shall leave it for now.
	An innovative approach for already disaffected older truants came to my notice recently. I believe that it will be debated during the dinner hour tomorrow. It is run by the skills force of the Ministry of Defence and is funded from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special fund. Apparently, it shows encouraging signs. The young person concerned gets individual expert help with challenging tasks and training but will receive that only if he or she goes regularly to school. I gather that it has been running in some 13 towns and cities for 18 months. Heads are already reporting less truancy and better behaviour.
	I remember many years ago a scheme in Lyon, France, where crime statistics rose dramatically during the long summer vacations. A joined-up offensive from the appropriate public services and private companies provided a positive blitz of stimulating alternatives to crime. It worked. Even longer ago in Japan, it was normal practice—now, sadly, discontinued—for business leaders to take on responsibility for those showing early signs of disaffection. It was their duty to provide the guidance and opportunities that those young people had previously lacked. Again, it worked—crime figures were amazingly low.
	That kind of thinking, which produces innovative public/private schemes and involves the practical input of successful individuals with high leadership skills, is badly needed. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that many such schemes are indeed under way and are showing signs of equal success.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches have not put a great deal of emphasis on this issue. By and large, we were convinced by what the Minister said last time. The kinds of programme that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, discussed are precisely the efforts that are being put in place in some of the more difficult areas in which there are great problems with attendance. The target of 100 per cent attendance is obviously one at which we should aim—we all have sympathy with that idea—but the achievement of that figure is by no means always possible. The setting of targets has proved to be relatively successful. This is not an issue on which we part company with the Government.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by reassuring noble Lords that our belief is that schools should aspire to 100 per cent attendance. We want to tackle the problem of non-attendance head on. That is why we have put considerable resources into dealing with that issue. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Sharp, said, we try to be as innovative as possible and to support the schemes of other government departments and schemes from schools, voluntary organisations and communities. That is why we have also highlighted truancy sweeps, which identify children who are out of school, as an important part of that effort. We did so not least because they send a message to pupils, parents and the wider community that children should be in school, and they can be used to identify parents who are not taking the attendance of their children seriously. They underline the extent of the problem and our determination to tackle it.
	Our position is absolutely clear. Children have a right to education and parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated. Good school attendance is crucial if our children are to achieve at school. Our objective is that all children should attend school every day unless there is an extremely good reason for not doing so. Absence from schools represents a loss of 7.2 per cent of school time. In some schools the situation is even worse than that average.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, tackling non-attendance at school is a complex and long-term task that requires a number of different solutions. Recently, we have seen that those can extend to the gaoling of a parent. We want to add to the current action that we are taking in this area, and we believe that setting appropriate targets can play a role, both in school improvement and in raising community awareness of the issue. Such targets can provide realistic milestones for schools to work towards. Of course, many schools are already working hard to improve attendance and already set their own targets for improvement with their local education welfare service.
	Therefore, through this clause the Secretary of State will be able to set school level targets to reduce all types of absence and not only those which are not authorised by the school, as is presently the case. It is very important that we are clear about this issue. Attendance targets are already in existence, but they relate only to unauthorised absence. We have been in discussion with the Local Government Association and with schools, and believe that it is preferable to widen the focus of these targets in the future and, instead, to have a single target covering all types of absence.
	It is, of course, important that schools have the right incentives to take seriously all types of absence. Requiring schools with an above-average level of absence to set targets will ensure that they put their energy into working with parents and with the education welfare service to get children back to school. At present, the targets for unauthorised absence can result in debate within schools as to how each individual absence should be recorded. We believe that that distracts from the real issue. The emphasis should not simply be on why the child is not in school but on ensuring that the child returns to school as soon as possible.
	We also recognise that targets can be used to acknowledge improvement and applaud it. I give an example. Ofsted recently said of a secondary school:
	"Attendance levels are very good. The high level of attendance makes a very positive contribution".
	That school has an overall absence level of 6 per cent. Eighty per cent of those absences are due to pupil illness; 10 per cent are due to unavoidable family holidays; and other absences are due to funerals, religious festivals and events such as child protection reviews. The school continues to take attendance very seriously, putting all possible measures in place to encourage good attendance.
	Another example would be a school attended by traveller children. Our policies mean that traveller children are registered at one base school and, when they move around the country, they are marked as taking authorised absence. A target of 100 per cent would, of course, be impossible for the base school to achieve. However, that does not mean that it cannot improve attendance in other areas and set itself targets for that improvement.
	Statistics have shown that 45 per cent of all children and 83 per cent of primary school children stopped by truancy patrols were with their parents. There may be a variety of reasons why children are not at school, but the important point is to stress that children miss out on their education if they are not in school for whatever reason.
	As I said, the targets will not be additional to existing ones; they represent a widening focus that we know will be welcomed by schools and local education authorities. Some 35 local authorities have chosen to have a local public service agreement target on attendance for 2004 and beyond.
	The effect of the amendment would not be that there would be no targets for attendance; it would be that the targets could relate only to unauthorised absence, ignoring other forms of absence. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that was a topsy-turvy answer. During debate on the previous stage of the Bill, the noble Baroness told us that unauthorised absences totalled a mere 0.7 per cent. The number of authorised absences—those authorised by the schools—is 800 per cent greater. Therefore, the problem relates to authorised absences. Who is authorising them?
	The noble Baroness said that one problem was that parents did not take the issue seriously. We have heard and read about truancy sweeps, which have been very successful. However, we have only been told about absences involving parents walking around shopping areas with their children and other absences involving activities totally unrelated to education which the parents condone. If that is the case, and if such absences form part of the 6.5 per cent, then who is authorising them? The schools must be doing so.
	If the Government were really addressing the problem, they would do something about defining "authorised" and "unauthorised" absences, but they have completely left that issue aside. The Secretary of State is simply sitting in Whitehall and taking a power to set a target for each individual school.
	My particular objection to the provision is that I believe that responsibility and accountability for what a school does should be vested in the governing body and the staff of the school. As I said when I spoke to the amendment, the issue of incremental targets to improve the attendance of children is a matter for the schools. It is a day-to-day management tool of schools. We are trying to get away from the situation where "Whitehall knows best" and where Whitehall becomes involved in the day-to-day management of schools. I believe that such issues are a matter for the schools.
	I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not consider that this is an issue for them and that they are satisfied with what the Government say. I believed that they would have agreed that this was a matter for schools and not for someone sitting in Whitehall. We know that the Secretary of State for Education has many issues on her plate at present. Frankly, I am surprised that she is concerning herself with the direct management of schools and setting individual attendance targets for them. Indeed, the fact that the Secretary of State is indulging in setting individual targets below 100 per cent presupposes that she is dealing with the minutiae of individual schools. Where are the civil servants who will become involved in those minutiae in the department?
	I believe that there should be an overall target of 100 per cent and that all schools should aim for that. The setting of incremental targets in order to aspire to that overall target should be a matter for schools and governing bodies. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 152.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 60 [Power to require LEA to obtain advisory services]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 40, line 38, at beginning insert "following consultation with the local education authority,"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are both linked to Clause 60, which gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene and direct a local education authority to bring in external service operators to run a school or a group of schools when such schools have been shown to have serious weaknesses or to be in need of special measures. The Secretary of State may intervene only when he or she is of the view that insufficient progress has been made in eliminating the deficiencies in a weak or failing school, and that the LEA of its own volition is unlikely to act, or when the LEA has a disproportionate number of schools in that position. External partners may be successful schools; successful LEAs; further or higher education institutions; or public, private or voluntary bodies. Their job will be to provide advice to the LEA and/or the school governors.
	The two amendments, both of which we moved in Committee, are slightly different in their two provisions. However, we tabled them in order to make good what we believe are deficiencies currently on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 102 makes clear that, before taking the decision to send in external partners, the Secretary of State must have exhausted the route of internal discussion with the LEA. For the Secretary of State to take those powers is yet another centralising act, undermining the position of the local education authority. It should be the local education authority which acts in such cases. An intervention by the Secretary of State must be an act of last resort. Indeed, that was made clear in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee. As we argue here, it would be essential for the Secretary of State, first, to consult with the local education authority in order to assess what the LEA is doing or is proposing to do in such a situation. He stated:
	"There are only two possible instances when the power could be required. First, when an LEA is preparing an action plan following an Ofsted inspection which has judged a school as having serious weaknesses or requiring special measures, it may be necessary to require the LEA to involve external support where action is clearly necessary and the authority has no plans to take such action. Alternatively, a direction may be necessary later in the process if it becomes clear that an LEA's recovery plan is not working.
	In either case, we shall have been working closely with the LEA in question".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 989.]
	The amendment seeks to put the process of consultation on the face of the Bill. Given the assurance that in all cases there will be close consultation with LEAs, it seems sensible for that to be included on the face of the Bill as reassurance to local authorities. The matter is rather crudely and toughly stated in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 103 makes it clear that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for laying down guidance on specifications for such contracts. The contracts will have substantial financial consequences for the LEA. In circumstances when the Secretary of State has intervened, it is right that, where there are local council tax implications, council taxpayers should recognise that the council is acting on the instructions and under the guidance of the Secretary of State.
	In Committee, the Minister was quite clear that not only would that happen in exceptional cases but that it would be in conjunction with the local authority and that there would be some agreement. He referred to his own borough, Haringey, where the Secretary of State stepped in and insisted that external contractors were brought in to help run educational services in the borough. The big PFI in Haringey has not been entirely successful. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the recent report produced by the Rowntree Foundation about the Haringey PFI and the difficulties that it is causing. That is all the more reason where there are financial implications that it should be made clear to council tax payers that ultimately it was the Secretary of State who was responsible for requiring such levels of expenditure. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right that I said in Committee that we would be using the powers in Clause 60 only in exceptional circumstances; as the noble Baroness said, as a last resort. We would use the power when other efforts to tackle failure had not worked. In Committee, I gave the figures of how successful policies to tackle failure had been. I think the figure was that around 900 schools have been brought out of failure. That is carried out in partnership with local education authorities.
	Amendment No. 102 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to consult an LEA before a determination is made to direct it to enter into a contract or some other arrangement to obtain advisory services to help it turn around failing schools. We accept the concern, as I made quite clear in Committee, but we do not consider that the amendment is necessary.
	At the risk of repeating what I said in Committee, there are two situations in which we might use the power under Clause 60. First, where it is clear that the LEA may need to involve an external partner to remedy failure where the authority is not considering that action. The second—later down the line—is where an existing recovery plan is not working.
	In both cases—this is the fundamental point—the powers will have involved discussion with the LEA. We do not think that there is any benefit in delaying the process further by formal consultation, which is what the amendment involves. In those circumstances, the impetus will be for a rapid turnaround in the school's fortunes, which will involve deliberation with the LEA. If we had to have a full consultation process, we could delay matters. In any case, it would be unnecessary since we will have been considering the best way to tackle the problem with the LEA during the whole process. The key is the difference between the discussions which will have to take place with the LEA under our proposals and a formal consultation.
	I turn to Amendment No. 103. We propose to provide guidance on the way an LEA might use external partners to provide advice on turning around failing schools as part of new guidance on tackling schools causing concern. That guidance will establish a framework within which LEAs and schools might work. It will describe the respective roles of the LEA, the school and the external partner and might also include model contracts. But when the LEA enters into an agreement, it needs to have the flexibility to include terms and conditions appropriate to its individual needs. The experience of LEA interventions demonstrates that a solution tailored to the specific circumstances is necessary.
	So we do not believe that it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to issue detailed guidance about the terms and conditions she might include in a direction. That would be a centralising move, which is not particularly desirable. Terms and conditions could vary from case to case, depending on the matters which cause the problem in the first place. Therefore, statutory guidance would limit the flexibility available to both the Secretary of State and the LEAs in preparing an appropriate contract or an agreement.
	LEAs and governing bodies already obtain advisory services without the need for a direction. Our guidance will help those LEAs and governing bodies to obtain a solution which is suitable for their individual requirements. I hope that on that basis the amendment will not be pressed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. We felt, in response to the previous discussion of the amendment, that there was a case for including at least the first amendment on the face of the Bill.
	I take on board what the Minister has said. We shall think further on these matters. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
	Clause 62 [Academies]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 42, line 36, leave out "broad curriculum" and insert "curriculum satisfying the requirements of section 74 of the Education Act 2002, but"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in Committee, I welcomed Amendment No. 234 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, and I promised to bring forward a government amendment. We want academies to deliver broad and balanced curricula to their pupils. The amendment extends the legislative requirement on academies so that it more closely reflects the requirements placed on maintained schools in terms of the breadth and balance of the curriculum, the emphasis on meeting the moral, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical needs of young people and preparing them for later life. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment which, as he says, repeats entirely the amendment that we tabled in Committee. It will give slightly greater coherence to the Act in that the concept of a broad and balanced curriculum relates to Section 74. I thank the Minister.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I first declare an interest. Today, I accepted a governorship at one of the new academies that are being formed. I ask the Minister: what was the deficit before the amendment was brought forward? I understand the arguments for the amendment and I understand the points put by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. But has there been evidence of a lack of a broad and balanced curriculum being taught in the academies, in the city technology colleges and in the other schools of that ilk that come under the legislation? What material difference will the amendment make in terms of what is expected of academies? My feeling is that the amendment is otiose.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her new appointment. I hope that she enjoys her governorship. The amendment is not put forward in the sense of criticism of existing academies, which is what I think she believes, but it is important that we should so far as possible make academies reflect the requirements placed on maintained schools. Those requirements are that they should reflect, in terms of the breadth and balance of the curriculum, the emphasis on meeting the moral, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical needs of young people and of preparing them for later life. In view of our continual emphasis on the fact that academies have to conform to the rules for maintained schools, it is desirable to make that clear in the Bill.

Lord Quirk: My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but we are on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
	"PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH ETC.
	( ) A proposal to establish, alter or discontinue a school can be made by an admission authority or potential admission authority, the Secretary of State in the case of a City Academy, or the local education authority where the authority is not the admission authority.
	( ) All proposals shall be considered and determined by the School Organisation Committee which covers the area in which the proposed school is to be situated."

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, when we tabled an identical amendment in Committee we said that we were concerned that the Bill offends against local democracy by taking power from the LEAs and giving it to the Secretary of State. Logically, perhaps we should also have tabled an amendment to remove the whole of Clause 67 because it is peppered with powers for the Secretary of State to direct the LEA on this, that and the other in relation to what it should do and whom it should consult when proposing to establish, alter or discontinue schools. However, we did not do so.
	In her reply, the Minister offered to table an amendment. That appears today as Amendment No. 106, which seeks to remove the words,
	"with the approval of the Secretary of State",
	from line 44. That is welcome and I thank her for it.
	The Minister may be surprised that I have tabled this amendment once again. The reason for the amendment is that, given the power vested in the Secretary of State in Clause 67, the words,
	"with the approval of the Secretary of State",
	in Clause 66 are superfluous. Their removal, although welcome, achieves nothing. I therefore wish to debate the amendment again to probe a little further the Government's intentions for the role of LEAs in establishing new schools, and to highlight our view that the power to decide should be in the hands of local people—in this case personified by the school organisation committee. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify their intentions in the light of the major role to be played by the Secretary of State, as described in Clause 67. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like the Minister to go a good deal further than that, although I doubt that she will. It is high time to shoot the old canard that there should be controls on who can start new schools. Schools that open and do not attract pupils cannot exist for long. Why should we want to stop people from founding new state schools? If someone wants to found a state school and to try to live off the amount of money that we are prepared to provide per pupil, good luck to them. Why should not they do that? Why should they have to go through endless committees to do that? Those committees will be stuffed with the kind of people who will think that they may suffer from new schools, such as those representing existing schools.
	If existing schools are not providing a good education, or if people want to provide education of a particular religious character or of a type that is not currently available—and enough parents want that to make a new school viable—why should they not have one? Why should it be the business of the state, the local education authority or the schools organisation committee to tell them that they should not provide what they have sufficient parents saying they want?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall try not to pre-empt the amendment that my noble friend Lady Farrington will be moving, but the purpose of that amendment is to remove the provision that before publishing a notice a local education authority would have to seek the approval of the Secretary of State. That is superfluous and I am delighted that we have been able to table that amendment.
	The intention of the new clause is to reverse the provisions in Clause 66. I shall with pleasure turn later to the canard of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Our purpose is to increase the opportunities for a wider range of partners to put forward proposals to become involved in school provision in the state sector. I must tell the noble Lord that anyone can make proposals for a school at any time through the school organisation committee.
	In this part of the Bill, we are focusing specifically on the opportunities for new secondary schools. First, it is for local education authorities to decide that a new school is appropriate. They are therefore in the driving seat, which is precisely where we want them to be. Where a local education authority considers that it is important for its locality to have a new school, it must publish a notice inviting proposals from interested parties. That is to ensure that as many people as possible who may be interested can propose their ideas for a new school. Of course, the LEA may make proposals of its own. The proposals will then be considered together and decided by the Secretary of State.
	I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that initiatives for new schools should come from those most involved with educational provision in the local area and should take account of the needs of the area as a whole. I also understand the concern that the local school organisation committee should be fully involved. We believe that our proposals meet those concerns.
	Everyone will be made aware of the need for a school at an early stage. Everyone will be able to consider how they can contribute to it. The LEA will still be able to make any proposals that it can make at present, and these will be considered alongside any other proposals. Importantly, details of all of the proposals will be published together in a notice in the local newspaper and parents and other local people will be able to comment on the proposals and, indeed, to object to them.
	The school organisation committee will not be cut out of the picture. All of the proposals and any comments on or objections to them will be considered by the school organisation committee. The committee will then put forward its views on the proposals to the Secretary of State, who will take them fully into account.
	As I said, I have tabled Amendment No. 106, to which the noble Baroness referred, which removes the need for the Secretary of State to approve an LEA's decision to publish. That is important. We believe that our proposals will encourage a greater range of providers to think seriously about establishing new secondary schools.
	Should any of your Lordships be interested to know how many new secondary schools are opened, the average is about four per year. New schools are important, but there is no deluge of new schools to give LEAs reason to feel that they are not in the driving seat. We are making this provision because we want to try to encourage innovation across the state sector. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation and the assurances that I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. We shall have to wait to discover how the local authorities involved with that small number of new schools feel in future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 66 [Proposals for additional secondary schools]:

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 106, I must point out that if the amendment is carried I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 107 because of pre-emption.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 44, line 8, leave out ", with the approval of the Secretary of State,"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 removes the necessity for an LEA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before publishing a notice inviting proposals for the establishment of an additional secondary school, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, recognised in the previous debate. All noble Lords who were present at—or read in Hansard—the proceedings in Committee, at a rather late hour, on 23rd May, will be aware that, as the noble Baroness said, my noble friend promised to consider the issue and table an amendment. An opposition amendment to the same effect was tabled in another place.
	That demonstrates that where we agree that there is a better way forward, we are prepared to support it. Having considered the matter further, we agree that there is no real need for the Secretary of State to have to agree in advance that an LEA may invite proposals for an additional secondary school in its area. We therefore seek to remove that requirement. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 107, standing in my name. The clause is one of several in this part of the Bill that do not apply to Wales. I referred to that in Committee, when we were discussing Clause 62, which relates to the new concept of academies. Regrettably, that clause does not apply to Wales either. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told us why. He said that the National Assembly did not want the power to establish academies. I refer noble Lords to column 993 of Hansard for 23rd May. That is short-sighted of the Assembly, and it may live to regret it, particularly if there is substance in the speech given by the Secretary of State earlier this week and in her critique of the comprehensive system.
	The clause enables the establishment of new secondary schools—community, foundation and voluntary schools and academies—in England only. My amendment would extend that power to Wales. I am surprised that the Assembly government have not sought the power for themselves. Although we may not need new schools in Wales at present, it is not inconceivable that we may need new schools—and schools of a different kind—in future. Legislation is not just for the present. It should have regard to possible future needs, and it should err on the enabling side. What if there were a major new town development or a major inward investment project, employing hundreds of people and requiring schools of a new and different kind? It may not be likely, in current circumstances, but it cannot be ruled out either. There have been such developments in the past, and it could happen again. It could also be that schools of a different kind from those that we have prove advantageous and that there is a popular demand for them. It would be odd if such a demand could be met in England but not in Wales.
	I do not think for a moment that my amendment will be accepted. At least I have had the opportunity to castigate the Assembly government for their blinkered view of Welsh educational needs and their failure to take advantage of what is on offer in the Bill. I would never argue that provision in Wales should always be the same as in England, but I would always maintain that any decision to differ should be well founded and advantageous to Wales. I am far from convinced that that criterion is met by the deliberate opt-out from this clause and others, notably Clauses 62, 65 and 67.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for the amendment. We welcome it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, recognised, Clause 66 introduces new procedures for establishing new secondary schools in England. The National Assembly for Wales set out its strategic view of educational needs in its paving document, The Learning Country. That document has been widely welcomed in Wales.
	In Wales, as in England, there has been a long-standing commitment to enabling schools to build on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. In Wales, that commitment finds expression in the close partnership arrangements with LEAs and in the Partnership Council, established by the Government of Wales Act 1998, which consists of Assembly Members and members of local authorities. Given that situation, it is right that we should respect the fact of devolution and the decision of the Welsh Assembly that, in the light of its approach, it does not wish to have the powers in this clause. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, will accept that devolution means that we should not second-guess or castigate—to use his word—the judgments that are made, particularly when they have such wide support in the Principality.
	Most LEAs in Wales have surplus school capacity, so it is not expected that there will be many instances of a need for an entirely new secondary school, rather than for the replacement of an existing school. However, three new secondary schools have been opened in Wales in the past five years. The noble Lord may be reassured by that fact. As he is aware, all three were established to cater for the growing demand for Welsh-medium education. That demonstrates that existing systems for establishing schools already allow for LEAs to accommodate parental wishes for different types of schooling and to meet changes in circumstances such as rising pupil numbers, to which the noble Lord referred. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 108:
	After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
	"MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL SIXTH-FORMS
	After section 113 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (inadequate sixth-forms) there is inserted—
	"113A MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL SIXTH-FORMS
	(1) Where the Learning and Skills Council for England proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole.
	(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard.
	(3) A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places, and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for the existing places, provided that the schools can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.""

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not rehearse the arguments that we considered at length in Committee, except to say that I still regard this as an important amendment. It is important that we protect sixth forms.
	During the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, concern was expressed about the future vulnerability of sixth forms. We were given assurances at the time that there was nothing to worry about. When the learning and skills councils—unelected, appointed bodies—were set up, it was again feared that sixth forms would be vulnerable. We now know that to be the case. There is huge concern about funding. I do not know who is to respond to this debate; it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, at the last count. Before he tries to tell us that everything is all right on the funding front, I shall disabuse him of that idea. Since I proposed the amendment in Committee, I have been contacted by so many sixth forms, pleading for the Government to fulfil their pledges on per capita funding and the assurances that they gave on funding for sixth formers. People are nervous about the adequacy of funding for sixth forms.
	There are also staffing benefits. Not everybody believes that sixth forms are a good idea. Many believe that tertiary education for 16-plus children is the way forward, and, for a long time, it was Labour Party policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who was a partner of mine in local government in East Anglia, made no secret of the fact that Labour Party policy was that tertiary education was preferable.
	I shall talk about staffing policy. We know that schools that have sixth forms attract staff and that staff looking for teaching posts are often attracted to schools that offer the opportunity to teach children aged from 11 to 18 who will go on to college and university. There is an educational point involved.
	My third concern relates to rural schools. Rural schools feel even more vulnerable than many urban schools. Choices in an urban area are much greater. In rural areas, there is the logistical problem of travelling from one school to another, and it is not easy to link up all rural secondary schools with the nearest tertiary college or sixth-form college. The position of rural schools is important.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said:
	"The Bill, together with the regulations and guidance for which it provides, will have the effect of ensuring that the LSC proposes changes to the pattern of sixth form education only where there is real evidence of local need and only where change would clearly benefit the young people in the area".
	He went on to say:
	"That is why the LSC will be able to make proposals only under clear conditions. Therefore, I want to dispel the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the LSC may be conducting its affairs in some position of prejudice against small sixth forms".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1031.]
	From talking to people in the local skills councils we know that there is a preference for rational post-16 provision. It is felt that if all post-16 pupils were in tertiary education it would be an administratively tidy solution. The Minister continued that proposals would be published only where there was clear, objective evidence for local need. He said that proposals would be based on a clear assessment of the overall need in an area. He then gave the game away by using the phrase:
	"by linking the possibility of closure simply to the views of the sixth form concerned regardless of the wider local needs".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1032.]
	There is the rub. We know that the Learning and Skills Council is minded to take the view that it would be better for an area as a whole to have all the sixth formers at either the local technical college, further education college, tertiary college or sixth form college. That could be argued to be in the wider local area's interests. The views of a small number of people who represent the sixth form of a school, which, as my amendment makes it clear, would not be subject to an adverse inspectorate report, must be taken into account. It is still possible for the Learning and Skills Council to come forward with a proposal that in its view is beneficial to the area as a whole but is definitely a disbenefit to a particular school.
	If the Minister meant what he said the last time we met in Committee, that schools need not be worried and that there are reassurances, it is important that my amendment is accepted. It says that,
	"Where the Learning and Skills Council for England proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption"—
	—no more than that—
	"that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole".
	That does not prevent proposals coming forward, but they would be tested against the case made by the school recognising that presumption.
	The second proposed subsection in my amendment proposes the safeguard that, the first subsection,
	"shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard".
	The third proposed subsection states that,
	"A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places"—
	—that is sometimes the salvation of many sixth forms in rural areas—
	"and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for the existing places"—
	—no more, no less. They shall be treated fairly, and on all fours with the existing places. The schools will have to demonstrate sufficient demand for the extra places. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group that are in my name. We support the amendment because we are worried by what the Learning and Skills Council is doing. When we passed the Learning and Skills Act 2000 we made it clear that we wanted small sixth forms to remain. We passed a clause in the Act which ensured that sixth forms retained spending in real terms at the level they had been receiving it.
	That has been important and I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the number of sixth forms that are unhappy with the degree to which the Learning and Skills Council has been throwing its weight around. Noises have been forthcoming in a number of areas which indicate that the council has clear ideas about what it wants to do: sixth form colleges work well, so why don't we have more?
	We firmly believe in diversity of provision at the 16 to 19 level. It is horses for courses. Some young people want to get away from school. They want to go to a college where they have a greater degree of freedom. My daughter was one: she benefited enormously from moving out of the school sixth form and taking her A-levels at what was then the local technical college. She enjoyed the freedom and was a well-motivated student; she went on to Cambridge.
	Other students do not want to move away and want to be in the more sheltered environment of the sixth form. That may be particularly true of some of the smaller schools. Many schools in rural areas have small sixth forms. We feel the beady eyes of the Learning and Skills Council on some of those schools asking why the pupils cannot attend the further education college in the large local town.
	The answer is that it is a leap to some of those children. It often involves a lengthy journey which they may not want to undertake. They may be happy in the environment they know. Sixth form colleges can differ from further education colleges, which often have 10,000 students. Sixth form colleges often have around 1,500 to 2,000 students. Some students benefit greatly from the different environment.
	We feel strongly that the current diversity on offer is a strength of our 16 to 19 system. It enables individuals to be suited to the environment they like best. It would be a shame if we were to close some of the smaller sixth forms, which have relatively higher costs than larger sixth forms. The Learning and Skills Council's remit is to make the most efficient use of its resources. Undoubtedly it compares those costs and recognises that it costs as much as £1,000 more per student to keep students in a small sixth form than for them to take their post-16 courses at the local further education college. But that diversity is vitally important. We want a clear assurance from the Minister that the Learning and Skills Council will not close down small sixth forms just because they cost more money and because it believes larger colleges will be more efficient.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 110 to 112. The first more substantive amendment was tabled in Committee. It relates to local accountability on sixth forms. It asks that proposals for changes go before the local school organisation committee and that consultation takes place. It provides an opportunity for assurances that the Learning and Skills Council will operate within local consultative frameworks.
	In Committee the Minister replied that,
	"The consultation paper on 16 to 19 organisation and inspection that we published in the autumn made it clear that we envisaged that school organisation committees and LEAs, school and college interests must be fully consulted".
	He went on to reiterate the fact that there would be consultation, stating:
	"We wish to ensure that the process for local proposals takes account of the views of the full range of young people and parents who might be affected by the changes in their local area".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1033.]
	That being the case, I put forward the argument that I made in Committee: if you agree with us, why not put it on the face of the Bill? It would be good to see it in the Bill because it would reassure local authorities that it is not a case of the Learning and Skills Council coming in and throwing its weight around, but that it will listen to local people and organisations. The Minister said in Committee that it should be doing that. If that is the case, why not place that on the face of the Bill?
	The final two amendments change "may" to "shall" and are the only two tabled on Report. Clause 68(8) states:
	"Regulations may make provision about proposals under this section and may in particular make provision about . . . information to be included in or provided in relation to the proposals".
	If the Learning and Skills Council makes far-reaching proposals on restructuring sixth-forms—the new section is headed "Restructuring of sixth-form education"—it is vitally important that information, consultation and so forth are made clear. I should like to see written on the face of the Bill a provision relating to information, but if that cannot be the case, let us at least have it clear in the regulations. Regulations must be made because we need them in these circumstances.

Baroness David: My Lords, there is probably only one chance in every generation in which to reform, develop and change post-16 education. The historic split between vocational and academic education continues to bedevil the nation. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said:
	"But it is the case ... that this nation is under-educated and under-trained.—[Official Report, 18/6/02; col. 615.]
	Clause 68, which enables the Learning and Skills Council to make proposals for re-organising post-16 education, is a necessary power in order to achieve coherent and cohesive education provision for all young people from 16 to 19. The system we have at the moment cannot be sound with so many different bodies with responsibility for setting the pattern of school, college and work-based learning provision post-16.
	I do not believe that we would tolerate a system in any other area of public life, especially with the work of institutions being important to us as a nation. We must ensure that all young people have the right skills for work and life and I cannot see how that can be done when responsibility is shared by so many bodies. If it means that in the long run fewer secondary schools will have sixth-forms but that young people will have a better education in larger, comprehensive sixth-forms and colleges, so be it. It is more important to put the needs of the nation and young people over the institutional autonomy of schools.
	The Bill gives to regulations the circumstances by which the Learning and Skills Council may make proposals. There are always concerns when such important issues are left to regulations. The suggestion in Amendment No. 108, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that a governing body should be allowed to keep its sixth-form where it believes that it contributes to the success of the school, is too subjective. She said that the protection of sixth-forms is as important. That greatly depends on the sixth-form. Perhaps it is important in a rural area because children may not want to travel very far. On the other hand, if the sixth-form is small, opportunities for the children are fewer. The number of subjects they can take is smaller and the competition and stimulation in having a number of brighter young people around would also be absent. Therefore, I do not agree with the noble Baroness on that point.
	I strongly believe that one should not automatically say that a small sixth-form must be retained. It must be examined extremely carefully. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we need diversity. We need a choice of sixth-form colleges, of further education colleges, but the proposal has not been properly thought out and it is important that the Learning and Skills Council does a good job.
	People may be worried about what is taking place, but there will be area inspections. The Secretary of State can require the LSC and relevant LEA to prepare a 16-to-19 area plan, which would seem to meet the concerns of Amendment No. 109.
	I support the Government's line on this issue, but I want to ask a few questions. Will the Minister confirm that there will continue to be an action plan after every area inspection? Will the plan be subject to public consultation? Will the Minister approve the plan? Will the Minister find additional funding to implement key actions from the plan? I hope that whoever is responding to the amendment can answer some of those questions, but I support the Government's general line on this issue.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not see why such decisions should not be left to pupils and parents. We may believe that pupils receive a better education in a sixth-form college than in a small school sixth-form. That would be the decision I would take for my children, but many people believe otherwise and their children do very well. Why do we have to decide such matters at the centre?
	Surely, we should be providing a diversity of opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. If children have the choice, as they do around Cambridge, of staying in a small school sixth-form or moving to one of the extremely good, large sixth-form colleges, and if they choose to stay in their school sixth-form because that is the environment they want and it offers them what they need, why not? We do not need to fund those sixth-forms to excess. I do not see why we should provide an automatic subsidy for sixth-forms. However, if the school decides to run its budget that way because the governors believe it is best for the school, surely that is a decision we can safely leave to them. I can think of many circumstances in which that is right and true for the school as a whole.
	I believe that it is fine for the Learning and Skills Council to make proposals and to say, "Why don't we do these things?", but if a school or two stand back for a while and say, "No, we will hang on to our sixth-forms and see how that goes", that will not undermine a great bureaucratic juggernaut that must be allowed to proceed. It seems to me to be all right to provide for children to move to sixth-form colleges but those who do not join immediately can join later. Like the euro, it can accumulate further layers of mud as it rolls along. We do not have to impose these provisions on people at the outset.
	Furthermore, it may seem wonderful to be able to save £1,000 a pupil by shoving everyone into a big sixth-form college in some local centre, but in rural areas that will probably cost the parents £1,000 in transport costs. It is not uncommon for parents and pupils to be spending close to £1,000 if they live, say, in rural Dorset and the children have to travel to a suitable FE college because they need FE rather than the local sixth-form. It is an extremely expensive business to obtain further education in rural areas. To impose that additional cost on even more people by centralising academic education in the way vocational education was centralised, and to regard that centrally as a saving when all that is being done is passing costs from the Government to individual parents, is not a constructive way of looking at the issue. I very much support my noble friend's amendment and I was delighted by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I agreed with every word.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I have one comment to make and two questions to ask. We know that in education as in many other activities there are significant economies of scale and scope. It seems to me to be quite wrong to say that just because someone has a sentimental regard for a small sixth-form we can ignore matters of such fundamental importance. A fortiori, since we are discussing public money here, it seems to me worse than foolhardy to say, "We brush that aside because we like our small sixth forms". It is not a matter which can be left to the school. The school is not given a fixed budget, being able then to choose. It is more complicated. Other considerations rather than those of the school must at least be brought to bear.
	Without the amendment, the position is not that suddenly all small sixth forms have to be closed down. Unless I have misunderstood, the proposal does not say that remotely. The amendment goes to the other extreme, saying that none of them can be closed down in practice without a great rigmarole. Therefore, the view that unless we accept this amendment, or something like it, it is the end of small sixth forms and of parental wishes in rural areas seems slightly far fetched. It would be wrong for this House to brush aside considerations of efficiency and the correct use of public money. That is my contribution on the substantial side.
	My two questions arise anecdotally so I do not have the evidence I should like. However, people have been in touch with me about the following problem. I have been told that schools are adopting an increasingly selective approach about who is allowed to stay on in the sixth forms. Various people have said that it is yet another example of the damaging effect of examination systems—we have them excessively in our country today—and school league tables. They say that in order to look better, schools are not allowing young people who would like to stay on in the sixth form to do so. First, can the Minister bring us up-to-date? What are the current legal rights of young people who, having been in that school, wish to stay on in the sixth form? What rights do they have? If they have the normal set of examination passes at the age of 16, in what sense can they demand to be allowed to stay on? In what sense can the school say, "No, we do not think you will do well enough in our sixth form and you have to go somewhere else".
	Secondly, whatever the current legal rights up to the passing of the Bill, does this Bill change those legal rights in any significant way, not merely for the comprehensive schools, which are my main interest, but also for the multifarious other schools—the rag-bag of schools, as I am prone to call them—which are being introduced? Do the children have the same rights, more rights or fewer rights?
	I support the remarks of my noble friend Lady David on the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was reflecting how happy I am to speak from the Dispatch Box having had such supportive speeches from my noble friends on the Back Benches. I appreciated the contribution from my noble friend Lady David emphasising the positive aspects with regard to the Government's policy for 14 to 19 year-olds. I am changing my perspective slightly on supportive Back-Benchers in view of the more knotty issues introduced by my noble friend Lord Peston. I shall address his questions in a moment.
	I reassure my noble friend Lady David. The answer to her question is that after an area inspection there would be an action plan. It would be subject to consultation. It is not a requirement legally for it to be approved by the Secretary of State but the Secretary of State is likely to take a keen interest in such an important development in terms of local provision put forward after an area of inspection.
	I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has concentrated overwhelmingly on school sixth forms. But let me reinforce what my noble friend Lady David said. This Government are not about closing down facilities and opportunities for 14 to 19 year-olds. The whole concept behind the development of the LSC and of government policy in the Green Paper, 14-19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards, relates to how we can extend provision. It is a little strange that we should have the major debate on the LSC constrained within the framework of a rather narrow perspective about what are purported to be threats to small sixth forms.
	I hear what the noble Baroness says about schools being anxious about funds. I have never been inside any school or any education institution without it expressing anxiety about funds. Creative people as they are, they can always make use of additional money, intelligently, ably and to the benefit of the community. That is an experience which we expect. But the noble Baroness knows that under the real terms guarantee the Government ensure that every sixth form must have funding at least equal to its previous funding and it is uprated for inflation. So the concept that the LSC has some hidden agenda in order to close down school sixth form provision does not tally with the strategy that the Government are adopting: the passing of the measure relating to the role of the Learning and Skills Council in the year 2000; and extending opportunities for young people.
	No single body has the power and responsibility to ensure that planning of local sixth form provision and of other types of 16 to 19 learning can be effectively integrated, or that the organisation of 16 to 19 learning in an area as a whole gives young people a wide range of high quality opportunities that will meet their needs and the needs of their communities.
	Clause 68 gives that planning role to the LSC to complement its existing duty under the Learning and Skills Act. But it is not a role that the LSC can exercise in isolation from, and with disregard for, other local interests such as schools and colleges.
	I have previously described to your Lordships' House in some detail the statutory procedures which we shall be putting in place through regulations and statutory guidance to ensure that any proposals from the LSC are founded on robust evidence and subjected to full and open local consultation. I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not return in detail to that issue.
	It is important to recognise that the LSC will take no decisions itself. It may propose only a local reorganisation that includes changes to sixth forms. The decision will in all cases be taken by the Secretary of State. In making that decision, the Secretary of State will take account of the strength of the evidence that a reorganisation is needed to raise attainment and participation, including whether options other than institutional changes have been considered; whether the statutory procedures have been properly followed, including full local consultation based on a clear analysis of any local weaknesses; the range of options for tackling them; the impact of the proposals on the range, quality and diversity of local provision and on individual schools and colleges; and the degree to which the proposal attracts local support and the nature and extent of any objections.
	We have built into our proposals a series of checks and balances to ensure proper analysis of local needs, full and open local discussion and careful and balanced consideration of the options available to raise attainment, participation and range of opportunity.
	It is in that context that I want to address myself to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is clear that she suspects that there is some hidden agenda of hostility to school sixth forms. The noble Baroness considers that the operation should be on some rational provision at local level. Of course I share that objective. As I have described, the whole concept driving the LSC is to pursue procedures which guarantee that all its decisions are rational. If a school sixth form is providing an education that is valued and meets a sufficient standard; and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, parents and students support that educational provision and are eager to participate, then the rational operation of the LSC will not distort that arrangement in seeking to fulfil some kind of secret agenda for closing down school sixth forms.
	We believe that school sixth forms have a vital role to play in our vision of providing diverse and flexible learning for 14 to 19 year-olds. Such sixth forms are well placed to respond to the challenge of developing coherent programmes because they, alone among the main types of providers, can offer continuity over the full 14 to 19 year-old phase between students and the institutions they attend. We know that many parents value such provision and, at least as important, so do students. That is why substantial numbers of students choose to stay on in school sixth forms.
	We do not seek to create what the noble Baroness hinted at; namely, a form of tertiary policy with regard to the LSC. On the contrary, we are putting in place a framework whereby a range of provision can be extended and developed according to local needs and local interests. I emphasise, therefore, that good sixth forms that meet the required standards have nothing to fear from the LSC. Institutions which offer their students high standards and which contribute effectively to the range and quality of learning in an area should—and will—be allowed to flourish. It would be nonsensical to do otherwise, both in terms of our aspirations for the 14 to 19 year-old sector and the learning experiences of young people.
	In her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, focused particularly on the possibility of closing school sixth forms. Our proposals are just as likely to result in proposals either to create new ones or to extend the sixth form provision of those which are presently coping successfully but which may have barriers to the extent of their activities.
	I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness with regard to rural provision. The matter does raise issues with regard to choice. We all recognise that we can assist in extending the choice and opportunity available to young people which, at the present time, in some rural areas can be very attenuated indeed.
	Perhaps I may cite one of our targets to illustrate the point. We want some 50 per cent of our 18 year-olds to enjoy the benefits of higher education. We could not conceive of reaching the target of 50 per cent by 2010 if we were to provide only limited opportunities for 14 to 19 year-olds and if we do not address the levels of drop-out. At this point I insist on making the point that that rate of drop-out is greater than almost any other advanced country. That is why the Government are so committed to extending opportunity. We recognise that there is a gap.
	In my view, it ill behoves the noble Baroness to suggest that there is a massive, negative and secret agenda here which seeks to chop opportunity for those already enjoying further education in a school setting, as well as reducing the range of provision on offer.
	Clause 68 and the regulations and guidance which will arise from the legislation will guarantee that the voice of individual sixth forms will be heard in the proposal and decision-making processes; and that discussion and consultation leading to local 16 to 19 year-old reorganisation proposals will look openly and thoroughly at local needs and the full range of options for meeting them. In short, the legislation we propose will promote local solutions, debated and considered locally, to meet local circumstances.
	Amendment No. 108 takes a wholly different approach by setting the corporate views of individual sixth forms above the carefully analysed and debated interests of young people in the area. I see little in that prescription to promote a rational analysis of local needs and the delivery of a well-planned, diverse and coherent network of opportunities, which is exactly the strategy the Government intend to pursue.
	I hope therefore that your Lordships will reject the amendment. I fear that my powers of oratory will not be sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her proposal. However, for a few blissful moments, I rest in hope.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, at the beginning of his remarks the Minister pointed out that the real-terms guarantee still holds. Can he tell the House how long that real-terms guarantee is likely to last? Will it hold indefinitely or is there a time limit on it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the guarantee is indefinite; there is no timetable with regard to it. However, we recognise that what it does is to ensure that school sixth forms can pursue effectively their strategy to develop educational opportunities against an increasingly changing environment. The Government's policies would not be succeeding unless that environment was changing. However, it is changing very much for the better so far as concerns school providers. That is because of the increased opportunities that will be provided in each local area.
	I wish to turn now to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness. They seek to specify on the face of the Bill elements of the process by which the LSC will prepare and consult on proposals relating to school sixth forms.
	We do not think that it would be appropriate to write the full procedural details which these amendments suggest on to the face of the Bill. Indeed, we believe that in some cases the processes already in place will be able to deliver more effectively the results which the noble Baroness has identified and which I share with her.
	The Government fully accept the spirit and intention that underpin the amendments. In Committee, I offered the noble Baroness assurances about how we shall incorporate into regulations and guidance both the spirit and the detail of the processes which the amendments seek to put on to the face of the Bill. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel that I have met some of her anxieties.
	However, there is one matter that I should like to add to the substance of my assurances. It is evident from this and earlier debates that the circumstances under which the LSC may initiate proposals are a matter of some concern. At the moment, the Bill specifies that proposals may be initiated either as a result of following up on the recommendations of an earlier inspection—to which my noble friend Lady David referred—or, less specifically, under other circumstances prescribed in regulations
	That reference to regulations is intended to allow further discussion and consultation before settling on a full specification of circumstances in which the LSC may act. It has always been our intention to ensure that any proposals must relate to the objectives of raising standards of achievement and raising participation in the area as a whole.
	Nevertheless, I accept that the breadth of the drafting has raised some concerns, which were voiced eloquently in Committee, about the latitude which it appears to offer and the extent to which it might open the door to reorganisations arising from other issues such as—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, more than hinted at this—the comparative unit costs of local 16 to 19 year-old education providers.
	I can therefore offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to the House a commitment that we shall bring forward at Third Reading a government amendment to ensure that the purpose of any proposals initiated by the LSC under regulations will be to raise achievement, improve participation or extend the range of opportunities available to young people. That will stand as a clear guarantee to sixth forms and to others that the new power for the LSC is a lever to improve standards and breadth of opportunity. We intend to ensure that the amendment we bring forward will preclude proposals that seek primarily to secure other objectives related, for example, to the relative costs of otherwise effective provision or the management of surplus places in an area.

Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. I am a little horrified by his words. Are the Government taking the position that a set of proposals could not be brought forward which would be as efficient as the status quo but rather cheaper in their use of public money? I believe that the Government are saying that that will not be allowed to occur.
	As someone who takes seriously the economic use of public funds, I shall be rather horrified if that is the Government's position. I cannot believe that my noble friend is saying that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise that cost considerations are not the driver behind the work that we want the LSC to do. We want an extension in opportunity and provision. Of course costs are involved, but in order to protect the provision for school sixth forms, which we value, we need to have a real-terms guarantee to ensure that schools have adequate funds.
	I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peston is with me on that. I recognise that he is rather more highly qualified than I am in the noble art of economics, but he will recognise that the Government are not approaching the exercise as a rationalisation proposal on how to reduce costs. We are thinking of the needs of the country, which are to invest in education and training, which means extending provision. Of course there will be additional costs, but the Government have said since coming to power that education is an important investment area for which such expenditure must be made.
	I hope that I have succeeded in reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that her amendments are not necessary in view of the amendments that I intend to introduce at Third Reading.
	My noble friend asked whether students beyond the age of 16 have the legal right to stay on in such institutions. There never has been a legal right, as such. Schools have always had the capacity to decide whether to welcome students post-16 into their sixth form. The only thing that I would emphasise, and I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this, is that schools are eager to extend opportunity. It is not a question of gates coming down, particularly when schools have behind them all the commitment of government to ensure that our education system expands rather than contracts.
	For the first time, the Bill provides a right of appeal for pupils who are not admitted to sixth forms in their schools. They will be put on a par with pupils applying to the schools from outside. I hope that that reassures my noble friend. I hope, too, that the amendments will not be pressed, but if not, that the House will reject them.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that it will not destroy the reputation of the noble Lord if I say that he has a charming and persuasive delivery, but I cannot honestly say that I am taken in by the content of his remarks.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, I do not want to criticise other forms of sixth form education in any way. The noble Baroness, Lady David, and I, know how well that the Cambridge system works. There are successful sixth form colleges, individual school-based sixth forms and very good further education available to young people in the area, who have the choice of all of those, which is important. On the fringes of Cambridge there are smaller schools sixth forms, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that if they are what parents choose because they suit the needs of their children, who are we to second-guess them?
	I rest my case on that. Diversity is a benefit and the more choice in the system the better. There is an arrogance about us when we say, "We think it is not good for your child to attend a small sixth form; a tertiary or further education college is better for your child". I am fighting for diversity and for the right to try, as far as possible, to allay the fears and vulnerability that is now felt by sixth forms.
	The noble Baroness, Lady David, confirmed all my worst fears on the issue. She asked why we should have small sixth forms when we could have a much more rational system of provision among larger sixth forms. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, followed that up by talking about cost-effectiveness as opposed to being educationally effective. I was further dismayed when the Minister said that he agreed with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. She also referred to the confusion that there has been and said that it is more rational for the Learning and Skills Council to have responsibility for 16-plus education.
	There is now greater confusion. A single 11 to 18 school now has to have a learning and skills council; an organisation committee; it must develop organisation and development plans; action plans are needed; and there is an adjudicator for the 11 to 16 part of the school and the LSC for the 16 to 18 part of the school. The local authority devises the organisation and development plan, which must be approved by the Secretary of State. But if, for example, a decision is made to expand or close a school, there has to be a feed across to yet another body—the Learning and Skills Council—to make a judgment about the impact of that on the sixth form in that same school. Yet the headmaster, staff, parents and pupils are all part of one single school.
	There is huge confusion and I wonder whether the Minister would like to reflect on the answer that he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She asked a pertinent question about the guarantee. I understand that it is not an all-time guarantee. It would help if the Minister would think about that. Secondly, I believe that the guarantee does not extend to increased numbers in the sixth form. It may extend to historical numbers, but when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was pressed on whether the guarantee would extend to increased numbers, we were not given an assurance. There is certainly some confusion on the question of funding.
	I do not agree with the 50 per cent target, but the Minister went on to say that the Government cannot possibly achieve their target of 50 per cent of the cohort going on to universities without the input of sixth form education. I agree with that. He said that we are not in the business of limiting opportunity, but my fear is just that. There are bodies, including the Learning and Skills Council, which believe that by moving from a sixth form school-based education into tertiary or further education, opportunities will be extended and that it will be more cost-effective. I believe that that is the main attraction for the LSC. It may please the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when I say that we know that it is rumoured among people involved in the LSC that it would be more cost-effective to go for the solution favoured by him.
	My fears are current and are shared by many of our school-based sixth forms. Our children are well served by them and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lord Lucas that we want a tapestry of choice. I believe in diversity. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 132.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 68 [Proposals relating to sixth forms]:
	[Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 113:
	After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—
	"ACTS DONE IN DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTION
	Where, in consequence of the operation of any provision of the Education Acts (as defined by section 578 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56)), the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) and of any subordinate legislation made under those Acts, any person other than a local education authority or governing body is or becomes responsible for the establishment or maintenance of any school, the acts done by that person in that regard shall for the purposes of section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) be treated as having been done in the discharge of a public function."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, this is a probing amendment to tease out the Government's intention regarding the role of private companies in education. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a private company is potentially subject to judicial review, whatever the provision in any education legislation. This will ensure that all private companies are accountable whatever their role in the education system.
	The issue has already been a matter for some debate in this House in regard to Clauses 10 and 12. As has been said, even if "for profit" companies are tightly regulated—under the terms of their contracts—in terms of operating under comprehensive equal opportunities criteria, their whole raison d'etre is to make a profit for their shareholders, not to provide a democratically accountable education service. At LEA level, for example, the majority of out-sourcing contracts to date have included bonuses as financial incentives for companies to meet performance targets, although not all contracts have included financial penalty clauses.
	By way of illustration, Nord Anglia's interim results to June 2001—the company that has been involved in Hackney, Waltham Forest and Sandwell—show that its annual turnover increased by 9 per cent, to £34 million, and its pre-tax profit increased by 50 per cent to £1.5 million. As, according to Kevin McNeany, 40 per cent of its profits came from running council education services and schools, Nord Anglia made a profit last year of nearly £600,000 from public funds.
	There is already some accountability regarding the role of private companies in the system. Ofsted's review of Nord Anglia's running of the school improvement service in Hackney concluded that the service was still discharged unsatisfactorily. Nord Anglia's contract has not been renewed. Hackney education will be run by an education trust chaired by Mike Tomlinson, who is still currently Chief Inspector of Schools. The new body has significant flaws, including a lack of teacher representation, but the ending of Nord Anglia's contract is welcome.
	The amendment would properly increase the level of accountability for private companies in line with the public sector. In addition, there are issues for the education service relating to the support given to schools by private companies, the education offered to pupils, relationships with the community, local democratic accountability, financial accountability, profit motive and the situation at the end of the contract.
	The question is whether a private company carrying out a public duty should have more accountability. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment, but we do not believe that the law in this area needs further clarification. The effect of the amendment is largely already reflected in common law. Its aim is to ensure that all bodies responsible for maintaining or establishing schools should be subject to judicial review. LEAs, governing bodies and the Secretary of State, in respect of CTCs and academies, are rightly subject to judicial review. Case law has held that independent schools, apart from city technology colleges, are not subject to judicial review.
	That seems about right. Parents who choose to enter into a private contract with a school to educate their children for payment have the usual private law remedies against the school. For that reason alone, I would not be happy to accept the amendment, which would bring independent schools under the courts' judicial review jurisdiction. We are content for the courts in this area to decide whether various education bodies should be subject to their jurisdiction. That includes the bodies to which the noble Baroness referred.
	We have set up independent appeal mechanisms for most of the usual disputes that arise in education—on exclusions, admissions or special educational needs—to give less formal redress in suitable cases. Judicial review then acts as a fallback if these bodies are said to have got it wrong. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that, on balance, the Government's position and the Bill meet the requirements of proper opportunity for justice in case law and that she will therefore consider withdrawing the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not think that the situation of an independent school is analogous. Clearly, if parents send their son or daughter to an independent school they will not seek judicial review, but in this case an independent school may be operating in the public sector as a company. That is a different issue. If they operate on a public contract, they will have to meet certain obligations.
	We shall look more carefully at what the Minister has said and think about it. We may bring the issue back again. This was a probing amendment, but we may wish to probe a little further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 72 [Interpretation of Part 6]:

Lord Peston: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 48, line 40, at end insert "which shall have the greatest flexibility possible for the purposes of interpretation by the teacher within general criteria"

Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115 and 116, which stand in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. Noble Lords with long memories will recall that I last spoke to Amendment No. 115 on 21st June 1988—almost 14 years ago to the day. However, I am talking on a different Bill this time.
	My starting position, which I think I share with most noble Lords, is that I strongly favour having a national curriculum. It has evolved over the years, but whatever its deficiencies, it has led to higher standards and a more thought-out approach in our teaching. I am not questioning whether we should have a national curriculum.
	I am concerned about how we can use the curriculum flexibly. We have discussed flexibility in a broad sense on other occasions on the Bill. I have one or two questions about the treatment of the individual child and providing enough flexibility to take account of their needs.
	I start from the negative or pessimistic side. There are two reasons why it is extremely hard to take account of the needs of the individual child or for the teacher to produce the flexibility that I have in mind. One, to which I referred not long ago, is the dead hand of the examinations system. No matter what one says about education principles and the curriculum, anyone with any direct experience of education knows that the system is driven by the examination system. I am afraid that the position is even worse than it used to be, because coupled with the examination system is all the nonsense of league tables and the rest. Part of the motivation of a school is the need to look right in its league table position. The school is judged to an extraordinary and excessive extent by the exam system.
	I am not going to the other extreme of saying that we do not need examinations or assessment, but it is worth asking whether we have too much of them. Being able to do examinations is a skill. As someone who was marvellous at it, I think that it is a useless skill. I have believed all my life that many very bright people have been misjudged because they were not good at exams. Their careers were often—I might go so far as to say—blighted as a result of their inability to cope with exams.
	We sometimes hear proud parents say, "My son or daughter has umpteen grade this or that at O-level and A-level". The notion that a large number of such grades is a better performance than a few has always struck me as absurd. However, I agree that the examination system is not nearly as absurd as the intelligence measurement system. Whatever else it measures, I have never believed that it measures intelligence.
	The examination system is one cause of the difficulty in gearing the curriculum to the individual child's needs. The other—and I am always careful about this—is the expense of gearing the system to the needs of the individual child. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, anyone who has been to a school will know that schools can always use more resources. That does not mean that, willy-nilly, we can simply wave our hands and say, "Therefore let there be more resources". Indeed, I always make the point that, no matter how many resources we give schools, they will still be constrained and have to decide how best to use those resources. One of my worries is that an attempt to deal specifically with the needs of the individual child might be thought to be too expensive.
	If I may go into anecdotal mode, I do not usually watch serious programmes on television; I watch mostly westerns and football matches. However, a couple of weeks ago, I watched the first of a three-part set of programmes on ITV to do with children who have mental illness. It was an astonishing programme about a young boy who had a form of schizophrenia. The boy himself must have been enormously courageous to appear on the programme, and the programme deeply moved me. He was amazingly fluent and remarkably mature in his understanding of his own position. He was also clearly very intelligent. Yet, in the end, the feeling that one had looking at this young boy was that the school, possibly doing the best that it could, was simply failing him. It could not offer him what he specifically needed as an individual.
	The programme ended leaving me in a state of deep depression, as the school took the view that the best place for the boy was not there but in a type of college that dealt with large numbers of people with that kind of problem. My immediate reaction was that that was about the worst possible decision that could be taken for such a young person. What shocked me was that he seemed overwhelmingly educable and not lacking in any ability to do the right things despite having a form of schizophrenia. Yet the curriculum could not be tailored to his individual needs.
	That is an extreme example, but, as we know, schools have many other pupils who need rather more individual treatment than they get. I am not criticising schools or blaming teachers; in a sense, I am blaming the system broadly without knowing quite what we should do. What I am looking for today is some response from my noble friend on the Government's view on flexibility and the interpretation of the curriculum in relation to helping the individual child. Within that, as the Government have rightly placed great emphasis on innovation, will the Government encourage schools not to innovate narrowly but to innovate for young people who have individual needs? I have not used the words special needs because I am not really talking about special needs. I am talking about individual needs and a child's need for quite individual support. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said has certainly struck a chord with me. As strict application of the national curriculum does not work for all children in school, flexibility is important. My understanding is that earlier legislation allowed all schools—but perhaps the measure has been overtaken by later legislation—to disapply the national curriculum for particular children.
	I visited a special school in the North East which was truly inspirational in everything it was doing. It was applying the national curriculum to many children for whom one would have thought it inappropriate. Such was the erratic nature of other young people's receptiveness to education—they had the types of problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has referred—that the school had to disapply the national curriculum in order to ensure the necessary flexibility to meet their educational needs properly. I am wondering whether that flexibility still exists. If it does, I believe that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, can be met.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is opening the door on what should be a very exciting 20 years. A great deal will come out of the review of the 14 to 19 curriculum. If it works, it will start to offer real flexibility to the kids who are going to be part of it. We can see it beginning already. In my son's school, those who are good at mathematics will take GCSEs a year early and then go on to do an AS-level. They will therefore have pocketed that before reaching sixth-form college and have that ability to move ahead.
	The 14 to 19 curriculum will also enable broader undertakings. It may take time, but I hope that we eventually have examination systems and timings that suit pupils and their achievement level, rather than operating as a metronomic schedule by which pupils face examinations at the end of each of the last four years of school. All exams should be rather like music exams, which pupils take when they are ready. It is extremely difficult to get one's head round how schools can be organised and timetabled to do that. However, if we move in that direction, schools will be offered much greater flexibility.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we have to look very carefully at how we measure and restrict schools. Any form of measurement over time tends to affect schools' behaviour, so that they teach to succeed in that measurement rather than simply to teach pupils. I have developed an increasing loathing for the requirement that GCSEs be administered to pupils at 16 and not to pupils in a given year group. That is making it very difficult for kids who are dropping a year behind to find a school that will let them drop a year behind. Such pupils count as part of the school's statistics but have no results, causing real problems in competitive environments such as London.
	It is a particular problem when the system provides a totally arbitrary cut-off date to determine pupils' year placement. One day's difference can put a kid in a different year group. If a kid just makes it into the higher year group but is one half year behind in development, he would be much better in the lower year group. However, that cannot be done, and schools will not do it because of the effect on league table results. That inflexibility has long persisted in league tables, and the matter should really be examined. It is starting to cause regular and idiotic problems. We need to be flexible on such matters and ensure that our way of measuring has an effect.
	I shall be fascinated to see the effect of value-added league tables when they are introduced. They offer great potential for broadening people's appreciation of what happens in schools. They will affect the way in which schools teach in relation to measurement, particularly at the end of primary school when every extra point in a pupil's grade is the measure of the primary school's achievement and is essentially subtracted from the secondary school's achievement. There will be much tension in that respect.
	We should be flexible in these matters. We should not become attached to rigid measurements. We should always consider what is good for the pupil rather than what is good for the system. I hope that that is the direction in which we move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I should like to echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Lucas, that flexibility is a thoroughly good thing. We welcome any flexibility that can be introduced into the national curriculum. That is why we very much welcome the broadening of the concept of earned autonomy—which I think addresses some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We now have a commitment to earned autonomy which is to start in a large number of schools and which is to be rolled out to almost all schools within a five-year period. That is a major achievement on the part of this House in terms of improving the Bill as it has progressed through the House. I am absolutely delighted that we have done so.
	The big problem with targets is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, that when you set up a target there are all kinds of unintended consequences in terms of the way in which people react to it. One does have to be careful about that. Our world is now too dominated by targets—the more we can get rid of, the better.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will surprise no one to hear that I was not quite sure how to respond to this group of amendments. I wish that we could spend an afternoon debating the issue rather than discussing it as part of the Report stage of a Bill. I believe that we would discover a great deal of common ground on the matter and have the chance to explore it in greater detail. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that my remarks will be reasonably brief but that does not mean that I would not wish to discuss the issue at far greater length when opportunities present themselves in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the tearoom.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we have re-examined all the current possibilities as regards exemption, for example, disapplication. That remains possible and would be used in the way that the noble Baroness described and also in other ways.
	Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I am a huge fan of the national curriculum. It has been an important development, particularly as regards ensuring that girls do not follow one set of subjects and boys another, as was the case when I was at school. If for no other reason than that—I could give plenty of other reasons—I remain a fan of the national curriculum. It is important that we are careful about what we do in that area although we wish to retain flexibility.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred quite rightly to our discussions on earned autonomy. I have no desire to rehearse those. I entirely agree with her that we have debated at great length part of what my noble friend seeks. I also agree with her that we have improved the Bill in that context.
	I should like to spend a few moments talking about the young man to whom my noble friend referred and the need for flexibility in regard to individual children. It is important that we develop the opportunities for all our children to have the education that works best for them. That applies to children whom we classify as gifted and talented, to children who have learning difficulties and to children with an aptitude or a desire to learn based on particular interests and so on. In other words, we educate all our children and take them as far as we possibly can within a broad education that recognises the individual.
	As regards the young man who was mentioned, I refer to what I describe as the continuum of education. That involves expertise that might, for example, exist within some of our special schools for children who have particular difficulties and particular problems. That support should be available in special schools, mainstream schools or in a mixture of both to enable children to get the support that they need. I entirely agree with my noble friend that innovation, and the power to innovate that is contained in the Bill, concerns all children. We look to schools to consider innovation in terms of children across the spectrum of ability and of need. Such innovation may affect some children who do not get from the education system what we would wish them to get.
	I turn to the specific amendments we are discussing. To begin with Amendments Nos. 114 and 115, the arrangements for assessing pupils at the end of the key stages consist of national tests and teacher assessments. I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that teacher assessment is an essential part of these arrangements and the outcomes of the assessments are reported alongside the test results. The two have equal status and provide complementary information about children's attainment. While the tests provide the inevitable snapshot of a child's attainment, teacher assessment, carried out as part of teaching and learning, covers the full range and scope of the programmes of study. It is intended to take account of evidence of achievement in a range of contexts, including that gained through discussion and observation. For children working at levels 1 and 2—the lowest national curriculum levels—teacher assessment provides the sole means of statutory assessment. That is an important point.
	I believe that there is already a good deal of flexibility in the system. It is for each teacher already to use their professional judgment to determine both the method for assessing and the actual attainment level that each pupil corresponds with.
	I know, of course, that there is an argument that national testing in some way reduces the potential for teachers to make their own judgment. I can understand that concern. But we think it is right that in our core subjects and at key points in a child's learning, parents, pupils and teachers should have a national standard against which to measure attainment. I do not believe that that reduces teacher flexibility; rather it complements it by ensuring that consistent standards are applied across the country.
	We talk about how many times children are tested. We are discussing with schools how often that is appropriate. As noble Lords will know, there are tests at key stage 1, the results of which are not published, at key stage 2, the results of which are published, at key stage 3 at the age of 14 and at GCSE. Those are the key tests up to the age of 16. I, too, welcome value-added league tables. I am responsible for those within the department. It is important to understand that although they will not provide a solution to everything, they will enable us to determine which schools are genuinely adding value between different stages, which schools do well with children they should do well with in any event, and also to identify schools which may be coasting a little.
	I also recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the 14 to 19 strategy provides real opportunities that we shall have to explore. We need to consider how we measure attainment and how we publish that information. I believe that parents expect to have information and expect to be able to find it. I understand the point that the noble Lord made with regard to flexibility in the matter of testing. I am pleased to tell him that we are considering that matter and ensuring that we keep these matters under constant review.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 116. I do not believe that the programmes of study constitute a straitjacket. Teachers are not prevented from covering areas not set down within the programmes of study. As long as the programmes of study are covered, it is for teachers to determine what additional matters and materials they want to introduce into the classroom. And they can tackle the programmes of study at an appropriate pace for children. We are giving schools greater freedom to accelerate through them if that is what their pupils need. But we do want to be sure—this brings us back to earned autonomy—that any school taking on greater freedom is able to use it well and in the best interests of its pupils.
	I hope that at some stage we may have a longer debate on this issue. However, I hope that I have said enough to make my noble friend feel that he is able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their extremely interesting contributions. I do not disagree—I do not suppose that any of us do—with the need to estimate averages and totals within schools to assess performance. I simply make the point which I believe that my noble friend the Minister made; namely, that any child should be able to ask—no matter what the score for the school is—what about me as an individual? I apologise to noble Lords because, as was rightly said, we could debate this matter at great length and could spend many hours so doing. However, the trouble is that we do not have many hours to spend on it. The Report stage of the Bill is about the only opportunity that I have had to raise the matter.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in case she did not understand the point—although I am sure that she did—that I am not arguing that the national curriculum should be regarded as inappropriate for some young people. I do not think that she would argue that, either. My point is exactly the reverse: that the national curriculum is appropriate but that it must be applied in different ways for different young people.
	Finally, I point out how taken I am with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it would be much better if we assessed people when it was right for them to be assessed and did not say, "On this day of this month you will be assessed on everything that you do". No sensible business enterprise would run itself that way; why our schools have to do so is completely beyond me. We may discuss that issue on another day when a different Bill is before us.
	I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have heartened me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 116A:
	After Clause 77, insert the following new clause—
	"FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BEFORE THE FOUNDATION STAGE
	The Secretary of State may give or make arrangements for the giving of financial assistance to any parent or other person for or in connection with the education or preparation for school of a child prior to his attaining the "relevant time" as defined in section 77(2)"

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121D. I grouped the amendments because they both deal with the early years, which is a crucial period in a child's development when the brain is being prepared for education.
	Dealing with Amendment No. 116A, in her reply to a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister drew attention to the Government's commitment to young children and their parents. She referred to the Government's Sure Start initiatives and the Early Years partnership. As promised, she kindly arranged for me to be briefed on Sure Start and its progress. I was extremely impressed by what I learnt about what Sure Start is doing. It is a multidimensional and holistic programme and there is consultation with parents and professionals. I understand that evaluation is beginning to show some results in the areas in which the programme is working well.
	The problem is this: when this phase of the Sure Start programme is rolled out completely in 2004, still only one-third of the nation's children in poverty will be covered by it; two-thirds will not be covered. I say in parenthesis that not all children living in poverty are necessarily in need of support and some children living in rich households may need support. Bearing in mind the huge dividends in terms of physical and emotional health and educational potential, which can be achieved by improving the environment in which a young child grows up during his or her first three years, it is surely extremely short-sighted not to roll out the Sure Start programme more quickly.
	If the best way to raise families out of poverty is to bring them into employment, surely investment in the child's early years is doubly important because it enables the mother to go out to work earlier. That is good for the mother and the child.
	I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that she and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State will fight as they have never fought before to persuade the Treasury that investment in the very early years is the best investment that it could possibly make.
	I turn to Amendment No. 121D. I can be fairly brief because the Minister wrote to me indicating certain assurances that she is likely to feel able to give from the Dispatch Box. On the basis of those assurances, I should accept that the matter had been sufficiently addressed and would not press the amendment. I shall not delay the House for more than a moment because I set out the details of the case in Committee. For the benefit of anyone who was not in Committee then or who cannot remember the issues, I shall summarise my argument in a couple of sentences.
	The Soho Family Centre operates an innovative and highly successful centre in Soho, where a group of childminders care for children in premises that are specially equipped for the purpose and shared between them. Ofsted, which recently took over the inspection of such facilities, decided that the Soho Family Centre falls foul of the law in that technically it does not operate in domestic premises, which is a requirement relating to childminders. It felt that it could not turn a blind eye to that technical infringement (Westminster council had done so for many years), and it seemed probable that the centre would have to close.
	My noble friend Lady Howe and I were deeply concerned about that for two reasons. First, it would be a great pity if that important facility were closed down. Secondly, it is an exciting and innovative experiment and it would be a great loss if the formula that it has evolved were lost for ever. Under the arrangements that I hope that Minister will advance, the possibility of expanding the formula that the Soho Family Centre has developed would become a reality. I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to discuss the Soho centre. Both of these amendments and those in the following group, which appear in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne, should have had my name attached to them. However, I am afraid that a mistake was made and it was omitted.
	I turn to the foundation stage. Amendment No. 116A would ensure that educational finance and other resources can be made available in appropriate circumstances even when—this is the point about the very young generation—the child in question who is under three is not at that stage being provided with nursery education, as defined in Clause 77(2). It is about tackling from every angle the "cycle of deprivation", which, as I have said on another occasion during the passage of the Bill, has been with us for generation after generation and for far too long. The purpose is to ensure that helpful intervention with deprived families can begin at that earliest possible moment, so that by the time the child concerned reaches compulsory school age, his or her chances of benefiting fully from the educational process will be considerably enhanced. I hope that the Minister will assure noble Lords that the ethos that lies behind the amendment can be accepted.
	As the Minister knows, I have considerable admiration for the initiatives that the Government are already undertaking to tackle family deprivation. I was at the briefing that was given to my noble friend Lord Northbourne. There is very little doubt that those initiatives—early excellence centres, neighbourhood nurseries and Sure Start—will be successful. We are all eagerly awaiting assessment and dissemination of the results. With the Minister herself involved, in co-operation with health and social services, in the delivery of those plans, I have little doubt that the will and the necessary resources to succeed will be there. However, as is so often pointed out in your Lordships' House, Ministers, however good, come and go. I therefore hope that the amendment will make certain, by spelling it out in black and white in the Bill, that the department's resources can be made available in the pursuit of those valuable educational objectives if other current sources of funding, from health and social services departments, are diverted to other priorities.
	I turn to the Soho centre. The concern was to ensure beyond doubt that, while more appropriate new legislation is being devised, centres that are similar to that in Soho can continue their valuable work. I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Northbourne said. We saw for ourselves the excellent work that is done for the children and the help, guidance and encouragement that child experts provide to the childminders to improve standards and their qualifications.
	The centre has been providing this excellent service in the locality for some time. As we know, it is regarded by many experts as an example of best practice worthy of replication in similar areas where space is at a premium. Frankly, it would be a travesty if the Soho centre were forced to close because of a recent legal interpretation by local authorities that activities conducted on non-domestic premises cannot be defined as "childminding".
	Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister can spell out unequivocally that the Soho centre, subject to its continuing work of this very high quality, will be able to continue under its present financial arrangements. If that is so, surely it is unlikely that there will be a need for the amendment to be pursued further.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to support the spirit of both amendments. However, I understand that the Minister may tell us that Clause 13 gives the Government all the powers that they need in order to carry out what the first amendment seeks to achieve.
	The House will know that I am very supportive of any measures to—at the risk of being drummed out of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; I know that he hates the phrase—level the playing field. It is most important that we do so, in particular, at the pre-school stage. If the Government ensure that children benefit fully from their education when eventually they reach that stage, that will be a very good investment. Therefore, I call upon the Minister to make available more Sure Start programmes so that all children who could eventually benefit from such services receive them. I also support calls to ensure that the good work of the Soho centre does not have to end.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The noble Baroness sent a very helpful letter to the noble Lord, and I understand that she will place much of it on the record for the purposes of this amendment. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will incorporate in her response the reply to some other questions.
	On the first page of the letter is a commitment that the Government will, in principle, support models of childcare, such as the Soho centre model, and address the whole issue of domestic and non-domestic premises. The letter states that,
	"we would not want the legal or regulatory framework to prevent the development of such arrangements".
	My understanding is that they do so at present.
	The second indent in that part of the letter states that,
	"the primary legislation does not need to be amended to accommodate such arrangements".
	However, on the second page, where the noble Baroness refers to having debated the amendment in Committee, the letter states that she,
	"argued that the wording proposed made a fundamental change to the childcare definitions in the Children Act".
	Therefore, either it is a fundamental problem or it is not. It seems to me that there is a difference in concept between what is said on the first and second pages of the letter.
	It is a silly demarcation arrangement. I do not believe that anyone in this House would say that a way does not need to be found and that, frankly, it needs to be found quickly in order to allow the provision of the Soho Family Centre to continue. The fact that a person working in the Soho Family Centre is technically a childminder should not get in the way.
	Therefore, with all the promises that have been made to look again at the regulations, at the definition of "childminder" and at the definitions of "domestic" and "non-domestic" premises, and with all the other reviews that are taking place of the Children Act and of the state of the law as it stands at present, it would be helpful to know whether the Soho Family Centre will be allowed to continue legitimately from this moment with the full blessing of the Government. It would also be helpful to know that there will be no visit from the inspectorate to say that what the centre is doing is contrary to the law.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendment No. 116A. I am very grateful for all the comments made by noble Lords about the Sure Start programme. I shall ensure that those responsible for the programme have sight of those comments in Hansard. I believe it is important to give those people the recognition that they deserve. I agree with every noble Lord who has called for the programme to be extended. I shall talk about that in a moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is absolutely right. Sure Start has been the main route by which we have approached the issues about which the noble Lord has greatest concern. It is a cornerstone of the Government's drive to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. Noble Lords who are not familiar with the programme may like to know that it works with parents-to-be, parents and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of babies and children under the age of four, and in particular those who are disadvantaged, so that they can flourish at home and when they get to school. In that way, it breaks the cycle of disadvantage for the current generation of young children.
	We set up local Sure Start programmes to improve services for families with children under the age of four. Good practice is spread from local programmes to everyone involved in providing services for young children. In particular, the programmes have been extremely successful in involving parents in managing the scheme. They work closely between the areas of health, education and social care to enable services to—if I may use the term—"join up" most effectively to support parents and young children.
	The success of the programme is measured by looking at the level of reduction in smoking among young mothers, at the birth weight of babies and at practical and measurable outcomes for such children. Evaluation is under way. However, I say to noble Lords who are as keen as I am to see the evaluation that whether or not the programme works will become apparent later when the children are educated. Therefore, although we are looking for measurables now, I am also keen that we look for measurables when the children are older. The proof of its success will be apparent in that.
	We wanted 500 programmes to be in place by 2004. By the end of May this year, 522 programmes had been announced. When those 522 programmes are up and running, they will reach 400,000 children under the age of four. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, that includes one-third of children under the age of four who live in poverty in England. I accept absolutely that reaching one-third of children in poverty means that we do not reach two-thirds of those children. As noble Lords will be aware, the vast majority of poor children do not live in deprived areas; they live all over the country in every conceivable kind of community.
	We have been considering how to ensure that we have a blueprint within the programme—that is, a mainstreaming programme. In a sense, the mainstreaming of Sure Start is the next big area that we shall develop. It includes looking at what we call the "Mini Sure Start" programme—bolting a Sure Start programme on to Early Years and childcare partnerships work. It also includes looking at the role of integrated centres in childcare, Early Years and Sure Start to provide all the different types of provision that we want. In addition, it means focusing on rural communities. There, we need to examine how we can work closely with families who, due to the nature of rural communities, are spread over a distance. Of course, it also means providing an opportunity for all local authorities which are responsible for social care and education to build on a Sure Start model as part and parcel of what they do.
	Therefore, we are looking very seriously at how to roll out what, from the early signs, we consider to be a very successful programme. As noble Lords may be aware, I am chairing the childcare review—the inter-ministerial group—on behalf of the Government. These issues form a large part of the work that we are carrying out as part of that review, and they are being pushed forward to the Comprehensive Spending Review. I hardly need to say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we consider these issues to be most important.
	In terms of Ministers coming and going, I accept that one day I shall be gone. However, I believe that the programme indicates a genuine commitment across government. I know the value that Sure Start has and I know the esteem in which the programme is held across government. On the steering group relating to the programme are ministerial representatives from many different government departments. They have all expressed their support. Therefore, I believe that the programme is valuable and highly recognised. It is, indeed, a cornerstone of the Government's policy.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right; there is provision for this in Clause 13. We have the power to give financial assistance for the provision of education for pre-school children. That will enable resources to be made available to prepare children for school.
	We have taken steps to ensure that the scope of the clause is wide enough to fund the education elements of Sure Start or, indeed, other programmes—this need not refer only to Sure Start but, as I said, Sure Start is important—through the Education Bill. Therefore, there would be no additional benefit gained by the inclusion of the amendment. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
	I turn to Amendment 121D. I am grateful for the comments made by noble Lords who received copies of my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, regarding the provision of childminding facilities at the Soho Family Centre. I have spent a great deal of time considering the issues and am happy to put on the record a few assurances that I hope will be relevant and of benefit to the noble Lord, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and to other noble Lords.
	I confirm that in principle the Soho Family Centre model is an attractive one, particularly for some of our disadvantaged communities. The idea of allowing childminders, whose own homes are unsuitable premises for childcare, to use instead non-domestic premises seems eminently sensible. There is an issue about who would take responsibility for ensuring that the premises are suitable if more than one childminder is involved. However, aside from that, we believe that this is worth careful consideration.
	Secondly, I confirm that there is nothing in current primary legislation to prevent this type of childcare being established. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the nature of the wording of the amendment, not the principle behind it, created the problem to which I alluded in my letter. The difficulty at present is that the national standards and associated secondary legislation is not geared towards this kind of day care. However, we have a solution in sight. Given our commitment to review the national standards and related secondary legislation next year, we shall consult, as we always do—it is right and proper that we always consult on such issues—on the standards and shall ensure that the Soho Family Centre is involved in that consultation. It will be important in that review to acknowledge that new forms of childcare are emerging, matching the needs of children, parents and their communities to ensure that the standards are appropriate.
	Thirdly, I am keen to ensure that the Soho Family Centre is able to continue its valuable service to the local community without changing the ethos of the arrangements or making the service too expensive for parents because of the additional training obligations and costs of employing childminders.
	I can report that Maggie Smith, Ofsted's Early Years director, visited the Soho Family Centre on 11th June and that a possible way forward has been discussed. I confirm that if the centre proceeds with the suggested approach or a similar day care registration proposal, it will not be closed down by Ofsted, nor will it be forced into a substantial change in its finances or ethos.
	The proposed approach is to register the childminding service as group day care provision on the basis of the childminders agreeing to work together as a co-operative. It is clearly important to the centre that they preserve the current ethos. Ofsted colleagues will be working with the centre to achieve that. I understand that the next step is for the centre to produce an action plan by September for discussion with Ofsted.
	It has been argued that a change from childminder registration to day care registration could make it impossible for the childminders to remain self-employed. Neither the national standards nor Ofsted would require a change in employment status. I understand that the tax authorities will take into account the facts of the working arrangements rather than any pre-conceived notion that childminders are always self-employed and day care workers are always employed.
	We have been in touch with the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership and I can confirm that there are ways in which the transition to day care registration might be supported, both financially and otherwise, in the event that additional costs are incurred.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As I explained, the wider implications of the proposed amendment are far reaching. We want to see a full review. We recognise that when we review the standards under secondary legislation, these will be important issues. Our view is that existing primary legislation allows us to register the kind of service that the Soho Family Centre offers, whether on domestic or non-domestic premises. That includes similar types of provision for people whose domestic circumstances prevent them from being registered as formal childminders.
	I undertake that we shall review the national standards and associated legislation next year to ensure that the requirements and framework for childcare regulations are able to accommodate the many different kinds of childcare which parents find valuable, including innovative schemes that do not readily fit the historic patterns of provision.
	In the mean time I am confident that we have found a way forward with the centre which means that it will not be forced into radical change which would threaten its viability. I commit that we shall do all that we can to support the centre through any changes which might be necessary in order to maximise the value of the service to the children and parents it serves and to the local community. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her encouraging reply about the Soho Family Centre. I should like to read the details, but I cannot think that we could have asked for more. I am sure that the various people involved will be pleased. Much more importantly, the opportunity for that kind of venture to be replicated will remain open.
	As regards Amendment No. 116A, I am grateful for the assurance given by the Minister that powers exist to make the kind of investment which I had envisaged in Early Years. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I do not believe that Clause 13 provides such powers. I assume that the Minister has some other powers up her sleeve. If the Minister is prepared for somebody to write to me to tell me what they are, I should be grateful. I shall not move Amendment No. 121D. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 116A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 80 [Curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages]:

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 116B:
	Page 53, line 41, after "citizenship" insert "including the opportunities and responsibilities of parenthood and family life"

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, Amendment No. 116B concerns preparing young people for parenthood. Citizenship education is about learning to be a good citizen. There is probably no single more important role which a citizen performs in his or her life than bringing up his or her children. Those children are the nation's future.
	Until the age of three, the nurture and education of the vast majority of children is the responsibility of their parents. Even when a child reaches full-time education, it will spend approximately only 28 per cent of its waking hours in school. The other 72-odd per cent depends, at least for young children, on the parents.
	A large and increasing body of research shows that the social environment in which a child spends its early years is highly significant for that child's physical and emotional health and for his or her future achievement in education and employment. Why, then, is the role of being a parent—arguably the most important job that most of us will ever do in our lives—the only job for which we offer young people no preparation? A significant minority of children today come to the important job of parenting without the slightest idea of how to tackle it. Sadly, a number have had no experience of appropriate parenting or of a happy, supportive family life.
	Many of us hoped that the Government would take advantage of the introduction of the new citizenship curriculum to confirm and endorse the role of schools in preparing young people for the job of parenthood in future. I confess that schools may not be the ideal place to do that job, but if it is not done in schools, where else will it be done?
	In 1997 the Gulbenkian Foundation published a report of an important experiment in parenting education which took place in five schools in Manchester and was carried out by Phil Hope, who has since become a Member of Parliament in another place. A non-stigmatising, non-judgmental scheme of work was developed. It was a great success and was much appreciated by the pupils.
	In 2000, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority carried out a survey of children to find out what they wanted from the curriculum. The answer came back that among other things they wanted help with financial affairs and managing money, and the opportunity to consider the implications of parenthood in future.
	In 2001 Ofsted produced a report—a rather dashing red report—entitled Sex and Relationship Education in Schools, which urged that education in preparation for parenthood should be a mandatory subject in schools. The object of education for parenthood is not to lecture children about some magic way of being a perfect parent, but to give them help to do what they want to do, which is to give their future children the best start in life that they can.
	The programme of parenting education is not about stigmatising teenage mothers, single parents or any other group; nor is it about any single right way of being a parent. It is, quite simply, about helping young people to have the confidence to do what they want to do—that is, to do the best that they can for their children. There is plenty of evidence that that is possible.
	Under those circumstances, I am sorry to have to report that the Department for Education and Skills' scheme for the study of the citizenship curriculum at no point mentions parents or preparation for parenthood. The scheme specifically refers to responsibilities in the workplace and in the community but not to those of parenthood. I ask the Minister specifically: why are future citizens' responsibilities in the workplace more important than their responsibility for raising the next generation of the nation's children?
	Even in the non-mandatory framework for the PSHE curriculum, there is no mention of preparation for parenthood. There is a mention of marriage and several of relationships. They are both important, but they are only a small part of the parenthood subject. Do the Government really believe that preparation for parenthood is so unimportant that it should be left out even of the non-mandatory PSHE framework?
	There is ample good material and experience available to show how this subject can be taught effectively. The department have kindly sent me about 2.5 kilos of material on the subject. That material is prepared by voluntary organisations. It is very good, but it will not carry the same weight with schools as a statutory curriculum or a statutory framework. In an overcrowded curriculum it will get edged out—let us be realistic—or it will get put in the "too difficult" tray.
	The single most effective way that the Government could overcome the current problems in schools—disruption in the classroom, violence, opting out of learning, exclusion and teacher shortages, the ways in which society fails the 20 per cent of children in school referred to the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—would be to improve the environment in which disadvantaged young children grow up in a small minority of the nation's homes. That means helping and encouraging parents.
	I ask the question: why are the Government not prepared to start helping prospective parents while they are still at school? I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne said. I have an interest to declare. I am heavily involved in a charity called Safeground, which is working with the DfES and the Prison Service to produce an extensive education pack for prisoners on parenting. It received a very good review from NFER in its evaluation. It is immensely popular with the prisoners because these young men know how much they are missing. They can see what has gone wrong but they do not know what to do to get it right. They are desperate that their own children should not suffer from the kind of deprivation which lies in so many in their backgrounds.
	However, for 25 year-old men in prison it is leaving it a bit late. If those men had been given a taste of the enjoyment that can be derived from bringing up a family and had been taught how to develop and enjoy a relationship with their children, it would not only have enriched them enormously and perhaps provided them with a considerable motivation not to end up in prison, but it would have given their own children a much better start in life in the time that they were with their fathers before they went to prison. Surely that must be a crucially important thing to do. If one recognises the value of doing that with prisoners, one can surely recognise the value of providing that opportunity much earlier in schools.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the relative importance of relationships in the family and at work. If one makes a mess of relationships at work one goes and gets another job. I suspect that that has happened to many of us. But with families one gets one chance. If one gets it wrong, one leaves other people behind in a great deal of pain and distress. It is much more important to talk about families than to talk about work. I hope that the Government will make a change and align their priorities with those of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also support everything that my noble friend Lord Northbourne has said on the subject. It is crucial, not only for young people who come from deprived areas but for everyone, that proper attention is paid at an early enough age to the important responsibilities, as well as opportunities and joys, that parenthood can bring. Frankly, that applies whether the subject of citizenship is taught as a discrete subject or absorbed into other curriculum subjects by the school concerned.
	I, too, thank the Minister for the several tonnes of material that have been sent. It helped to give one an idea of the range of issues that were intended to be covered by the course of citizenship which becomes compulsory from September. I am reassured that, in several of the areas where I had concerns, the course contents—depending on the age or key stage when they are taught—deal with contemporary issues, some of them in a very realistic and helpful way. For example, the media literacy content—a crucial subject in today's world, and one for which Ofcom, I note, is also to have responsibility for imparting to adult citizens—is designed, rightly, to instil a proper degree of scepticism in young people as to the motives behind the message or the image being communicated.
	Tolerance—and, indeed, more than that, an interest in and respect for other people's views, cultures and religious beliefs or lack of them—is also of paramount importance for the hugely multicultural world in which we live. When one thinks that in London alone no less than 300 different languages are spoken, the value of discussing those issues is clear.
	However, alas, as my noble friend Lord Northbourne has pointed out, little attention is placed on the crucial responsibilities and duties, as well as delights, of becoming a parent, which most young people are almost certain to become in their turn. I am for encouraging young people "to do what they want to do", as my noble friend said, but they also have duties and responsibilities to the community in ensuring, for example, that their children go to school and take advantage of education to fit them for the adult world.
	Equally, parental duties apply to both sexes—to boys as dads at least as much as to girls as mothers. Although I am reassured to see that the whole issue of equal opportunities and the changing role of women at work is also covered in the curriculum, I am less sure that there is enough emphasis on the need to share duties at home more fairly than in the past, and especially that there is not enough emphasis on parental duties and responsibilities.
	With your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to make one last point on the subject. Although it will be September before the citizenship course begins, I very much hope that there are plans in place to monitor what happens and how the course is received. Feedback will be essential in learning how pupils are reacting to the course and also in learning lessons from those schools which are particularly successful in getting these important messages across. There can be nothing more important in today's world than ensuring the best possible way of fitting young people for the very complicated world into which they will emerge as adults.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support the amendments and agree with noble Lords who said that parenting was probably the most important job that we would ever do. Unfortunately, none of us ever does it right. Even those of us, like myself, who were set a good example of how to do it by our parents, look back on the way in which we brought up our children and know that we made mistakes. I had a relatively privileged background and was set an excellent example, but I made mistakes. How much more important is it that we help young people who have not been set such a good example by their parents to learn how to avoid replicating problems in every generation?
	We know that, like problems such as sexual or physical abuse, bad parenting replicates itself in every generation. Efforts to ensure that young people are prepared for the difficulties of parenting and are armed with strategies to help them to bring up their children well represent a good investment. I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us how it will be done. I cannot believe that she will not tell us, in some form or other, that the opportunity offered by the citizenship curriculum and by the possible development of the personal and social education curriculum will not be grasped. We know that good parenting is important, and we must not replicate the problems.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, I support what was said by my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Howe of Idlicote and by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I have not come across it in prisons, but in young offenders institutions. A high proportion—about 60 per cent—of people in young offenders institutions have had a bad domestic experience. Some of them have talked to me about their confusion and about how they had never learnt how better to carry out the job of parenting. How would they, as 16 and 17 year-olds, learn to do it when they got out?
	I support the spirit of the amendment. However, the face of the Bill is not the right place in which to realise the aim of the amendment. It would be better to change the DfES document that defines citizenship to extend it beyond the workplace to that highly important area, the home.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I come at this from a slightly different angle. It is impossible ever to argue against the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. His concern about these matters is second to none, and we all want to think that we could, by some means, achieve what the noble Lord wants to achieve.
	I shall repeat a point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I have made many times. There are many children—a growing number—for whom school is the only anchor in their life. Home is not an anchor, and their domestic situation is often chaotic. There is a problem. As a Home Office Minister, I met young people in probation centres or—worse—prison cells and could see the opportunities that they had lost so early in their life. I can remember at least one White Paper that identified all the signs, from disruption of classes by small children through to pupils dropping out of secondary school and standing around on street corners, getting involved in petty crime and, then, more serious crime. At the time, it was called the classroom-to-the-prison-cell syndrome, and it was common.
	I am concerned at the way in which the curriculum works. Once a subject has been declared to be either a core subject or a foundation subject, civil servants or others are set to work to determine programmes of study, taking a view about what must be taught and what must be included. They will have something to say about the methodology and more to say about assessment and examination. That is where there is a difficulty.
	There are strong feelings about whether teachers should be judgmental about lifestyles. Some people ask whether we should expect teachers to preach about desirable forms of behaviour and about right and wrong. I have some fairly old-fashioned views about that, and I have been shot down in flames in the Chamber many times for being rather narrow and prissy about such things. However, to say that a particular approach shall be the way for all children in all schools and that teachers will teach such programmes of study would be to create a practical problem of delivery. What will be the state's view—for we are talking about state education—of family life and the responsibilities of parenting? I do not know the answer to that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said that the Bill was, perhaps, the wrong place for the change. If that is so, it might be that the work could be left to a combination of voluntary bodies. In the prisons, there are some wonderful organisations—the Society of Voluntary Associates is one— that work to bring order to the chaos in people's lives.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am concerned about citizenship, for many of the reasons for which I am concerned about family responsibilities and parenting. I have no concerns about the objective, but I have real concerns about practical deliverability.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with, I think, every noble Lord who has spoken. The most important job that one does in life is being a parent. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we do it knowing that we will make mistakes. Indeed, our children will remind us of those mistakes—frequently, in my experience. It is an important area.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that our children grow up in a complicated world. It seems to me that it becomes more complicated every year, which may be a sign of my age. All noble Lords recognise the importance of ensuring that we offer our young people the opportunity to learn as much as they can about their responsibilities. Many children get their knowledge and information from watching their parents, and they will do well by that, whatever mistakes they may continue to make.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in particular, that there are many ways and many opportunities to talk to people about parenting. I understand and agree with the focus on our young people, but I think that it is important that, wherever we can, we work with people of all ages to improve and enhance their parenting abilities. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he does. It is also a fundamental part of the Sure Start programme, which helps parents-to-be to become better parents and supports, in particular, those who live in disadvantaged areas, not because they are worse parents, but because they face more difficulties. Parenting orders are useful when children are out of control and parents need guidance and support. We are dealing with many areas of life, about which we are of one mind. We want people to be good parents, whatever definition of "good" we use, and we want to support them.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the 2.5 kilograms of material that we sent to him, and for the 2.5 tonnes that we sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. However, it is important to ensure that we provide as much information as possible and that everyone knows how much there is.
	I take issue with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said about the role of the voluntary sector. I am a huge fan of the voluntary sector's work in many areas—as, I know, are the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords. The voluntary sector plays a crucial role in providing material to many different organisations and institutions, including schools. We should credit it for the work that it does. We as a department—I am sure that this applied to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, during her time at the department—support organisations that can provide information to schools, as well as doing it ourselves. We are not always the best people to do that. It is important to make that clear.
	I shall take the two amendments together. It is important that we give pupils opportunities to learn about responsibilities, whether moral, social, parental or as citizens. That is central to citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4. We set out the statutory requirements for the subject and the programme for study, which is based on the order that we laid on 23rd June 2000, will ensure that from September, pupils will learn about the rights and responsibilities that underpin society. They build on current provision for key stages 1, 2 and 3, so that pupils can consolidate their learning.
	As at key stage 3, pupils at key stage 4 will continue to learn about responsibility, which includes parental responsibility, as a tangible, everyday concept. That will complement the framework for personal, social and health education. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples of that provision. It provides for pupils to be taught at key stage 2 about the different types of relationships, including marriage and those between friends and families, and to develop the skills to be effective in relationships. At key stage 3, it teaches about the roles and feelings of parents and carers and the value of family life, and at key stage 4 about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children, as well as the role and responsibilities of a parent, the qualities of good parenting and its value to family life.
	The citizenship programme encourages teaching through discussion of issues of national relevance—such as teenage pregnancy—in greater depth, and learning about individual and parental responsibilities as well as public interest issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that that understanding is vital if our young people are to fulfil their social responsibilities as adults and as parents.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the role of the national curriculum is to set the broad framework that helps schools to provide a broad and balanced education for all pupils. The Government believe that preparing young people for the role and responsibilities of family life is just as important as preparing them for civic responsibility in the workplace or the wider community. We should not, however, expect schools to usurp parental responsibility in the home. Parents are for most children the principal providers of guidance about parenting and family life.
	So we believe that the programmes of study for citizenship at key stages 3 and 4 are the right places to define the scope of teaching. Noble Lords may want to note a specific example in the schemes of work sent to all secondary schools in which, while exploring the concept of rights and responsibilities, pupils are encouraged to identify what kinds of roles they will have—for example, a family member or community member—and what rights, responsibilities and skills will be useful to them as they take on those roles.
	We want schools to have the freedom to explore with young people a broad range of issues about which we would all want them to behave responsibly as adults. Alongside the PSHE framework, pupils are already being taught about the opportunities and responsibilities of parenthood and family life. We attach great importance to that, and to ensuring that at every other opportunity we can work with young people—and older people—for whom parenting issues are crucial. That is why there is provision for schools within citizenship to be able to teach about social and moral responsibility. We shall continue to monitor what is happening.
	I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising the issue. If nothing else, it has made me consider and reflect as the Minister responsible for those programmes. I undertake to endeavour to consider those issues during the coming months and to talk further with the noble Lord. No doubt we shall have the opportunity further to explore the issue. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that when we have time, I shall have to give her a little education about the nature of parenting courses. It is simply an illusion to think that a well designed parenting course lays down values; it is about discussing values. It lays down facts. For example, a child would probably be taught as a fact that a baby that is constantly hit develops certain characteristics that make it violent. That is a scientific fact. But when it comes to what we do about that and what people want to do about that, young people are encouraged to work out and discuss their solutions, which are often extremely intelligent and sensible. As I said, it is not about trying to dictate a perfect way of parenting because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, no such thing exists.
	Turning to the Minister, I thank her very much for such encouraging and helpful remarks. But when I read the framework, it did not read like that. It simply did not say that. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could arrange for someone to show me where she finds what she described in the literature, because it sounded great. But that is not what I read in the statutory framework.
	I agree that voluntary bodies have an extremely important role to play. I further agree that it is extremely important to address those issues at all ages. But the long and short of it is that school is the only time when we have the children there, except possibly in the ante-natal clinic. It must be right to make use of that opportunity to begin to encourage them to think about those issues. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 81 [Curriculum requirements for fourth key stage]:

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 54, line 18, at end insert "and
	(d) a modern foreign language"

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment to Clause 81(3), I shall speak also to Amendment No. 118 to Clause 81(2). The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the status of modern foreign language study in secondary schools for 14 to 16 year-olds is not demoted. Neither amendment is intended to insist that one size fits all. Under Clause 82, it would still remain open to the Secretary of State to amend or waive those requirements. There is no Procrustean bed here.
	The intention to demote the teaching of language is much more explicitly revealed in the Green Paper on 14 to 19 education published this February. It sets out aspirations that many noble Lords will share, but its proposals for the teaching of modern foreign languages are badly matched with those aspirations. There is increasing evidence of how bad is that match. The unintended consequences of the proposal to reduce the status of modern foreign language study for 14 to 16 year-olds, leaving only 11 to 14 as compulsory years, would inflict widespread educational damage, especially to children whose schools do not have the highest academic aspirations.
	There is some safety in trying to ensure that the modern foreign language remains part of the core curriculum at key stage 4 with, as at present, a system for exempting individual pupils for whom further language study would not be feasible or educationally advantageous. Languages are not only part of a broad and balanced education, they are vocationally important in many different walks of life. They are not the preserve of an elite; they are something that every child deserves and that many will need in their future employment.
	Undoubtedly, we need to teach languages better. There is no dispute on that point, but stopping teaching them will not contribute towards that end. Unfortunately, since the publication of the Green Paper on 14 to 19 education, things have moved rapidly in the languages teaching world—rapidly downhill. I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the Nuffield Foundation, which has sponsored work on language teaching and a report on which we had a debate on a previous occasion. We have in consequence been in receipt of many comments from language teachers, head teachers and LEAs on some of the changes now taking place.
	Let us have no illusions. UK language performance was already in deep trouble before the 14-19 Green Paper was published. That has nothing to do with the special status of being an English-speaking country. Let us make a comparison with the other English-speaking country in the European Union, the Republic of Ireland. More Irish than British schoolchildren take languages to school-leaving level, although the Republic's population is about one-fifteenth of the UK population, perhaps one-twelfth of the English population. I am talking about numbers, not percentages.
	In 1999 in the UK 21,333 pupils took French at A-level, and 9,677 took German. In the same year in the Republic of Ireland, 36,871 pupils took French at leaving-certificate level and 10,828 took German. Since schools became aware that language teaching might be demoted to optional status at age 14, some schools have jumped the gun. One northern comprehensive with an almost entirely working-class intake has decided not to take student teachers next year because the head has already decided to make languages optional for year 10 pupils from September 2002.
	Previously, all pupils at that school took a language up to GSCE, barring a handful who were disapplied in a proper way under the provisions. Next year, out of a group of 300, 10 have opted for French and 16 for German; a total of 26 out of 300 pupils. One wonders for how long a school in that situation will continue to offer both French and German.
	The planning blight is galloping. It may surprise your Lordships that the decision to make languages optional was taken by the school before the consultation on the 14-19 Green Paper was complete; indeed, it had hardly begun. That was possible because the head of the curriculum division of the Department for Education and Skills issued guidance to schools on 18th February under Section 363 of the Education Act 1996, stating that while,
	"it will not be possible for changes to the national curriculum to take effect until August 2004"—
	—that is, after the Bill's passage; nevertheless,
	"disapplication should no longer be considered exceptional provision".
	It smacks of cynicism to make arrangements that undermine a subject while consultation about its reduction is in progress. What will be done if the consultation reveals strong and widespread opposition to the proposal? Will the replies to the consultation be made public? Will the damage already being done to language learning in schools and universities—including teacher training—be systematically monitored?
	As we debate, the basis of opportunity for young people in England to learn any modern language is shrinking. Fewer pupils will proceed to GSCE, A-level and university. University language departments are being closed with monotonous regularity. Hardly a week goes by without a further degree scheme falling. Fewer teachers are training and entering schools, and so on in a vicious downward spiral.
	None of that is necessary, and much is damaging. Above all, it damages the employment opportunities of young people educated in England. All around us, marketing and banking, airports and hotels, call centres and the legal profession, secretarial agencies and, yes, government service, need to recruit staff with language competencies. They recruit from those who were not educated in this country. Yet our young people are not given the basic competencies to enable them to work in Frankfurt or Milan.
	In boom times, as we remain, that may leave people educated in the UK with sufficient opportunities, although fewer than their counterparts in other European countries. But what is to happen if the boom times end and employment levels here are less robust than in some other countries of the European Union? Young people deserve a broad, balanced education that supports and does not undermine their employment prospects. The amendment seeks to safeguard that aim. I beg to move.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, I support the amendment. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that when the national curriculum was introduced in 1988 one of its goals was to have common breadth— an unrealistic common breadth, we may say in retrospect—with 10 compulsory subjects. What a long way we have retreated from 1988 to Clause 81, where that common core is reduced to three.
	The glaring omission which the amendment seeks to redress puzzles me in view of the Government's record on foreign language teaching. Under the Prime Minister's enthusiastic leadership, the Government have up to now strongly encouraged foreign language learning. I welcome the growth in specialist language colleges—a project with which I was associated in its early years—and the promise of "entitlement" to a foreign language at primary level at some time in the future, whatever "entitlement" will actually mean in practice.
	Clause 81 seems a perversely retrograde step that is out of kilter with the general thrust of government policy and indeed perversely widens the gap between public sector schooling and the private sector, where foreign languages will not be downgraded in this way.
	Of course it is easy to imagine reasons behind the Government's narrowing of the core. For example, modern language teachers are in short supply, as are those of other subjects in the core curriculum, such as science and mathematics. But EU ambassadors, under the lead of Herr von Ploetz of Germany, have assured us of help with modern language teachers. In any case, the teacher shortage—as my noble friend Lady O'Neill indicated—will be aggravated by falling numbers, which Clause 81 will guarantee; falling numbers at GSCE, A-level and undergraduate level.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is not in her place, but Universities UK has expressed concern, as the Minister will know, at the bad effect Clause 81 is having through the closure of university language departments.
	Yet another reason is the perceived lack of motivation by pupils in anglophone schools to learn a foreign language, given the grossly exaggerated belief that everyone speaks English. Ninety per cent of the world's population do not speak or understand English; a fact that seems to be fully recognised at least by the only other anglophone country in the EU, as my noble friend Lady O'Neill mentioned. In the Republic of Ireland, in proportion to our respective populations, 10 times as many pupils take school-leaving examinations at the age of 17 in German, and 20 times as many in French.
	Successive Secretaries of State have rightly deplored the culture of low aspiration that pervades our secondary schools while the present narrow core in Clause 81 moves in the direction of lowering children's aspirations still further. The none-too-obscure subtext tells schools, teachers and pupils alike, "Don't even think of aspiring to the levels accepted without hesitation in the schools of Italy, France, Germany and the Republic of Ireland. While they all expect their pupils to master two foreign languages, don't you even bother to master one foreign language". That modest goal was incorporated in 1988 in the national curriculum, but 14 years on we realise that it is beyond our capability.
	What a depressing and defeatist message to come from a Government pledged to improve our educational achievements and, as with health services, to bring the service up to the standards expected in the rest of the EU and widely beyond! There are to be just three years of statutory provision to have one foreign language, with the open invitation to neglect and then drop it; an invitation which, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, says, has already been taken on board by many secondary schools in this country.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who has done so much in this House to harry the Government about this lamentable subject.
	I should declare an interest, although not a financial one, as I am president of the Franco-British Society and a former member of the Franco-British Council. The result of the picture painted by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord is most evident if one travels in France. It is unusual to see British tourists able to book a hotel room or order a meal in a restaurant in any language other than English. Many British people now go to France to live and many of them are unable to speak the language. That is not good from Franco-British relations as it causes misunderstanding.
	The cultural side has not been touched on today. I think in particular of French literature, which suffers badly in translation, especially in poetry which is virtually untranslatable. An example of the decline would be in publishing. Only 40 years ago in English biographies of French authors all the quotations were given in French. At present, I suppose at the insistence of the publishers with an eye to sales, all quotations have to be given in English translation—and very flat they sound in the case of poetry. One sometimes begins to wonder what all the fuss is about.
	Why cannot we provide in our schools the kind of modern language teaching which our European partners provide? Why does it have to be left to the private sector? Would it not be better to spend a little more money as they do in Europe? Why cannot we make more effort to encourage more modern language teachers from abroad to come and work here? There was a French teacher in my school and I have always been grateful to him. Why cannot we encourage retired teachers to return to teaching part-time, especially qualified language teachers?
	I hope that the two amendments, which I warmly support, will be accepted by the Government.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I never want to see anyone who taught me French coming out of retirement! I loathed learning French and have always been bad at languages. That is ridiculous because in countries where people have to learn more than two languages everyone does so without any trouble at all. It is ridiculous that we find ourselves in this situation and there is much that we could and should be doing about it and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will tell us many of the things we are intending to do about it. In particular, we should begin learning languages in primary school—it should be second nature to all of us.
	In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, perhaps noble Lords will put themselves in the shoes of the pupils in the comprehensive in the North East. What do they have to gain from learning a language? They are being asked to learn a pretty turgid curriculum which is of little relevance to anyone who expects their life to be centred in the North East of England. I very much doubt whether any of the careers staff have ever thought of suggesting or talking to pupils about jobs in France or Germany—and why not?

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may give him the following example. An airport in the North East is recruiting ground staff in Spain and Scandinavia because no local school leavers have the elementary language skills needed to make announcements. Language learning is not irrelevant to the employment of people who are not going on to higher education. That is one of countless examples.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but in that case perhaps we should look at the curriculum to see whether what we are including for GCSE languages has any relevance to that kind of career. From what I have seen of what my children are doing, I see nothing of relevance. From the position of those pupils, I can imagine wanting to drop languages because what I was being asked to learn was entirely boring. At age 14, you do not focus on the idea of your career as being part of a local airport ground staff.
	It is necessary that effort is made in other directions, particularly by the careers departments and services at an early stage to make pupils aware of the difference it will make to have a foreign language. If we are to move to a baccalaureate system, which I would like to see, a language ought to be part of that. It should be recognised by those considering going on to higher education that they must take a language with them; that that would be part of what they were expected to bring as a portfolio into the future.
	There is much that we can do other than what is proposed in the amendment. My wishes would be to go in exactly the opposite direction; to take mathematics and science out of level A because if you are not going into a career which needs mathematics or science, you have studied almost everything you need by the age of 14. Apart from in my degree, I have not in ordinary life used any mathematics that I had not learnt by the age of 14. I enjoy science, but the science knowledge that I need in everyday life I had probably learnt by the time I was 12.
	The point of slimming down the core curriculum is to give us the opportunity to broaden and diversify, and to ensure that what is in the middle is the stuff that needs to be there. I believe that these subjects belong where they are going to be—that is, at the second level—but that is against the background of us as a nation needing to be 10 times better at languages. However, I do not believe that the amendment is the way to achieve that.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we had a lengthy discussion on some of these issues in Committee. We then agreed that there was little difference between core and foundation subjects. Indeed, under Clause 80 modern languages is not one of the core subjects; it is one of the foundation subjects.
	I understand that foundation subjects must be part of the curriculum. In terms of key stage 4, Clause 81 provides that modern foreign languages shall be a compulsory part of the curriculum. The issue which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, rightly raised is that under Clause 82 we are moving forward to the 14-19 proposals and the consultation paper raises the possibility of people dropping modern foreign languages more easily than they can under the current disapplication procedures, which are limited. Those schools which are jumping the gun should not be doing so. I hope that they will be duly reprimanded.
	I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, about the teaching of modern foreign languages. The Minister has been leading up to the task force. I hope that she will speak positively about the teaching of languages. The example of Ireland puts us totally to shame. It is appalling that a country with only 2.5 million people is putting more people through French than this country with almost 60 million people. It is vitally important that we do something to regenerate and revive the teaching of modern foreign languages in this country.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 which would put a modern foreign language back into the core curriculum. Sadly, I follow the view of my noble friend Lady O'Neill and others that the present situation as regards language teaching is deeply worrying. The Cambridge Language Centre points to the Government's own Green Paper and sets out the sorry state about which we have already heard: the shortage of modern language teachers; A-level entries down from 1991–92 and so on. The clear urgency for dramatic improvements is there for all to see.
	Does the DfES's own paper on language learning provide an answer to this problem? I am sorry to say that in my judgment it does so hardly at all. As is so often the case—one finds this at its worst in election manifestos—it is strong on rhetoric, ambitions, aspirations, challenges, "we wants" and "will be" as though defining a need or expressing a desire is the equivalent of providing a solution.
	Frankly, the situation calls for drastic and immediate measures if it is not to deteriorate. It is already deteriorating fast. I must emphasise again that in language learning it will be 10 years on, 2012, before long-term plans are fully operational for primary school pupils, rightly identified by a number of people as the key time at which to start language learning. Noble Lords will note that at that stage, they will be entitled to learn a foreign language, not automatically taught one.
	In reply, can the Minister give your Lordships some idea of government thinking and a real action plan for the long and short term. For example, are the Government likely to follow up some of the helpful suggestions put forward by the retiring German ambassador, Dr von Ploetz, and a number of his EU colleagues? It is suggested that the UK embarks on an urgent programme to recruit language teachers from abroad. He is concerned, as I suggest we all should be, that with the use of modern methods, using the Internet and so on, school exchanges with other countries will become increasingly problematical with British pupils unable to communicate in any meaningful way in the language of their opposite numbers while—surprise, surprise—foreign pupils at the other end will be only too happy to practise their English.
	Of even more significance—an important example was given by my noble friend Lady O'Neill—he points to the statistics. One in 10 companies is currently losing contracts because of their workers' inability to speak a language. It is not alarmist to say that by continuing along this complaisant path we put our own citizens at a considerable disadvantage in today's increasingly global job market. And, alas, government policies do nothing to correct that sharp downward trend. On the contrary—it is the nub of the amendment—the Cambridge Language Centre puts it this way:
	"The Government damages its own ambition, and is defeating its own purposes. It does so by reversing today's promises of languages up to 16 and by not maintaining modern foreign languages with the 14-16 core subjects alongside English".
	What is absolutely clear is the result. Again, we have heard plenty of examples. However, it is spelt out explicitly in the response from the Nuffield Languages Programme. Paragraph 4.1 says that,
	"there is ample evidence that removing languages from the core curriculum would lead to an immediate and substantial fall in the number of young people learning a language after the age of 14".
	Indeed, to make matters even worse, as my noble friend Lady O'Neill pointed out, the Government are not just anticipating but accelerating that process by jumping the gun. It strikes me, too, as cynical that even before the consultation period had been completed, let alone the Bill passed, the Government are steaming ahead with these damaging proposals, thereby increasing the divisiveness of the present system.
	There is already in existence a system of so-called "disapplication" which enables children who are unsuited to be exited from the language programme. So why is there need for that system to be extended and accelerated, particularly when it is clear that virtually every independent school will continue to teach foreign languages as part of the basic curriculum? Not simply Ireland, but all European countries will be doing the same. That is hardly the best way to encourage "inclusiveness" in this country which is one of the Government's major objectives. It is in order to prevent those consequences that I fully support the two amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I add my support for the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who makes the case for all of us who believe that it is an important subject.
	What is more disturbing is the way in which the department has jumped the gun. To issue guidance from the department during the consultation period regarding flexibility about the application of language teaching in secondary schools seems questionable. It would be helpful to have some comment on that.
	I touch on an aspect of language teaching which has not been raised. I take issue with my noble friend because I know the North East very well. As Minister I had responsibility for a part of the North East, Teesside, for a very long time, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, knows. One of the features of teaching languages to young people, in particular those who are not particularly academic—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, referred to young people who are not necessarily high flying academics—is that it increases confidence enormously. There is something about language teaching which enables young people to feel more confident about themselves. It is not the same as the more traditional subjects that they expect to be taught in schools. There is a benefit.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who is not in her place, referred to core and foundation subjects. One distinction is that the core subjects are always full subjects. They are never half subjects as foundation subjects can be. They are also assessed throughout the key stages. Where it applies in a key stage, a core subject is assessed, in many cases formally tested, and that information is made public. It is public information at key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, they are different. One will see the foundation subjects in the secondary curriculum, in particular the post-14 part of the secondary curriculum. But some of the subjects are half subjects and sometimes there is even flexibility about whether they should be applied. As I have said, there is a difference here. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, seeks to make the teaching of modern foreign languages more secure in the curriculum than would be the case if it is left as a foundation subject.
	I referred to the deputy head of curriculum in the department and said that he was "jumping the gun". It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could explain why a missive has been sent from the department allowing the subject to be disapplied not only in exceptional circumstances, but presumably at the whim of a school. We know that some schools have already disapplied it. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, referred specifically to one school. I suggest that that is by no means an isolated case; rather it is increasingly the experience in our schools.
	The figures comparing Ireland and this country are terrifying. It is the first time that I have heard about them. When we consider the percentage of the respective populations, they are worrying. However, as our world becomes ever more global and job opportunities become available between continents rather than simply between countries, if we are to equip effectively our children for the 21st century—whether or not we enter the European Community—then we ought to eliminate as many barriers as possible. Opportunities need to be increased. I give the amendment my full support.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall begin my remarks by confirming for the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that since 1988 there have been three core subjects in the national curriculum. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, Clause 81 will re-enact without change the existing provisions for key stage 4. Just like core subjects, foundation subjects are compulsory.
	As chair of the languages strategy group, I wish to pay full tribute to the Nuffield Foundation which forms a core element of the group. I could speak to noble Lords for a good hour or so on this subject; indeed, it deserves that length of time. However, I am also conscious that we are considering the Bill on Report and that I shall be keeping noble Lords in the Chamber for several more hours to ensure that we finish this stage of our deliberations.
	As I said to my noble friend Lord Peston, I shall frame my remarks in a way that I hope will answer some of the key questions that have been put to me, but which will not be taken by noble Lords to mean anything other than a desire to address the amendment as tabled and still allow noble Lords sufficient time to debate all the other amendments.
	Perhaps I may confirm that when in the autumn the languages group publishes the languages strategy, I trust that we shall then have an opportunity to debate these issues at far greater length.
	As I have already mentioned, Clause 81 re-enacts the provisions of Section 354 of the Education Act 1996 in relation to key stage 4 only. We seek here to develop our ideas on the 14 to 19 curriculum. I should make it clear that we have only just finished consulting on the proposals set out in the 14 to 19 Green Paper and that we are not yet in a position to take any decisions on this. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to alter the requirements of the curriculum at this stage.
	It is also worth making the point that, so far as the Government are concerned, schools are required to teach the curriculum as it stands. This Bill re-enacts the curriculum. A school cannot disapply the entire year. The only disapplication that is allowed is the disapplication that is currently in existence. Several noble Lords have referred to specific schools which have, so to speak, "jumped the gun". I should be delighted to be told the details of those schools so that we can look into it. No decision has yet been taken. So far we have put forward proposals. Letters have been written in support of retaining modern foreign languages as a compulsory subject, and letters have arrived in support of the Government's initial proposals. Those responses are being looked at and we shall make the relevant statements at the right time. However, we are not yet in a position to do so in terms of this part of the Education Bill.
	We are in the business of creating within key stage 4 the opportunity for greater flexibility. That is from where the proposals in the Green Paper arose. One interesting element is that, for the first time, we now find ourselves moving towards a national languages strategy. I do not believe that we have ever had such a strategy in the past. To that end, I take issue slightly with the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in her remarks.
	When previously we debated the question of modern foreign languages in your Lordships' House, I believe that no fewer than 11 languages were proposed by noble Lords as being the most important languages to be studied. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was absolutely right to comment that we live in a global economy. In today's world it is no longer enough simply to say, "We shall offer one language to all children and that will have to suffice". We want to find a way forward. To that end we are looking at the model from Ireland.
	We want to develop a languages strategy for all our citizens. Within that strategy we have made it clear that our focus will be on primary school age children. Any noble Lord who has studied foreign languages will know that the earlier children begin to learn a language, the more likely they are to continue with that language and to be able to learn other languages. In itself, language learning is a skill that we want to ensure our children command.
	We want to recognise the global economy. We should also recognise that some of our children are bilingual, trilingual and multilingual. That is perceived in the main as a problem rather than as something to be celebrated.
	We are working very closely with the Nuffield Foundation to establish a system of language grading similar to the grading system used in music. Such a system would enable any language to be accredited. Thus when people apply for a job requiring language skills, they need not say, "I can order coffee in nine languages"; they will be able to demonstrate something more substantive. Grading will form a central plank of our proposals. It will not be aimed only at primary school age children; it will be for everyone. If someone wishes to learn Portuguese or Italian, then they will have an opportunity to do so. I am most grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for providing us with high levels of support on establishing a grading system.
	We must ensure that we introduce a system that makes full use of the available technologies. Within a short time it will be possible for a Spanish lesson to be taught by a teacher living in Spain. Such technologies will help to address some of the issues with regard to teacher shortages. Students will be able to participate in a science lesson taking place in Nantes, or perhaps a geography lesson in a school in Milan. All this is eminently possible and is currently being explored in the department, working with supportive organisations.
	Every education Minister has or will attend a national languages strategy group meeting in order to discuss with the eminent members of that group the ways to ensure that language learning is considered across the entire education system. I should say to noble Lords in the best possible spirit that we cannot possibly decide that the future national languages strategy should rest on compulsory education between the ages of 14 and 16 years. It is a much bigger issue than that.
	I am working towards a strategy of which we shall be proud. I have discussed this with the former German ambassador, Dr von Ploetz. He has commended our work and even asked me to autograph our interim languages document. We are also talking to the French ambassador, M. Bernard, who I believe is to visit the languages group. Indeed, we have made contact with representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office across Europe to ensure that not only will we work together with regard to teachers, but that the assistants programme is revitalised within our specialist schools. We have a raft of ideas to work on.
	I hope that noble Lords will forgive my enthusiasm for this subject. I would not wish us to focus on this particular part of the Bill, seeing it as evidence that somehow the Government refuse to take seriously the issue of language learning. We need a national languages strategy and we are committed to providing your Lordships' House and the country with one by the autumn. We are working closely with expert colleagues to achieve that end.
	Against that background, in drafting Clause 81 we have taken care to ensure that the current requirements are reflected. We have not anticipated the outcome of the 14 to 19 consultation. We have given our commitment to consultation. Furthermore, we shall give your Lordships the opportunity to debate the orders under Clause 82, as they are subject to affirmative resolution, and we shall take into account the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I have invited everyone to give their views on the 14 to 19 strategy. No decisions have yet been made. We shall ensure, whatever happens with the 14 to 19 strategy, that there is a national languages strategy, which I hope your Lordships will feel able to commend.
	Much has been made of the fact that we have set a date of 2012 for the entitlement of all primary age children. It is an end and not a beginning. If we make a commitment and set a time to it, we want to ensure that we can fulfil it. If entitlement is to mean more than basic French—it should mean a lot more than that—we need to ensure that we can deliver it.
	On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I thank her for raising the issue and pay tribute to the Nuffield Foundation. I look forward to further debates at greater length on these issues.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to pose two questions following what the Minister has just said. First, it is clear that the noble Baroness has a natural enthusiasm for language teaching. Most people have now been led to believe that something exciting will come along for the teaching of languages in primary schools. If there is to be flexibility for 14 to 16 and 19 year-olds who are now dropping languages, where is the cohort of young people who will be sufficiently competent to go on to teach languages in not only secondary but primary schools? We are talking about an increase from 3,000 or 4,000 schools to 24,000 schools who will require language teachers. That strikes me as an example of the mismatch between aspiration and ability to deliver.
	My second question refers to the fact that it seems that anything is up for grabs in terms of flexibility at key stages 3 and 4, except citizenship. Why is there no flexibility in that subject? In all the answers that I have received to Written Questions, it is a compulsory subject. It must be taught, and it must be studied by all young people. It is extraordinary that the status of language is being reduced, whereas there is no allowance for flexibility in the new language of citizenship.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, citizenship is an important subject. Nothing has changed. Schools are not allowed to start dropping languages as of now. We have made no decisions, but have simply suggested ideas. I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the issue of guidance. I shall also write to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, which I meant to say in my remarks. The position is clear: the law is the law, and these subjects will continue to be taught.
	We shall be doubling the number of teachers of primary-school French. Because we have not been teaching languages in primary schools, we do not yet know how many teachers will be available. We want to think creatively about using people who have language specialisms, but who are not necessarily qualified teachers. Thinking of the music example, there are opportunities to teach languages in primary school.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her enthusiastic remarks and the raft of ideas, which are interesting.
	It is clear that the amendment cannot speak to the real issue that is of such concern far beyond this House because the material lies beyond the Bill in the Green Paper. It is not a myth that we are suffering from acute planning blight. If one is deep in a hole and has only a rickety ladder by which to climb out, it would be a pity to burn the ladder before one has got out of the hole. I fear that that might be what is happening on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 117A and 118 not moved.]

Lord Brightman: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 54, line 24, at end insert ", and
	(f) geography"

Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall be brief. This is a repeat of an amendment that I moved and then withdrew at the Committee stage. Its purpose is to give a student in a grant-maintained school a statutory option to study geography up to school-leaving age, instead of stopping at the age of 14, as at present, and as under the Bill. As I said in Committee, geography is not only a matter of knowing the countries of the world and their features. It impinges on some of the most important problems of the age, such as global warming, environmental degradation, racial conflicts, economic migration, retreating ice caps and glaciers, disappearing rain forests, disastrous dams and other potential hazards.
	If we dismiss geography from the national curriculum at too early an age, we shall end up with fewer trained geographers and we shall be less well equipped to deal with the problems that I have mentioned.
	When I withdrew my amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister responded readily to my suggestion that we might meet to discuss the future of geography in the national curriculum. That meeting has taken place, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me almost an hour to discuss geography with her.
	The Minister followed our discussion with a letter to me recording the interview and summarising her views on the proper place of geography in the national curriculum. I shall quote a few lines from her letter, which reads:
	"I agreed with you at our meeting that it would be good to see a position where any child wishing to study geography during key stage four"—
	that is up to school leaving age—
	"would be able to do so . . . I want us to work together to promote and enhance the teaching of geography".
	I could not have expected a better response to our discussion.
	As matters stand, many if not most grant-maintained schools offer geography up to school leaving age on a purely voluntary basis. They do not have to do so by law. My amendment, if it were accepted as part of the national curriculum at key stage 4, would require a grant-maintained school to offer geography up to the age of 16 to those students who wished to study it. That would avoid a highly undesirable situation, which can obtain at present, in which a student of geography may have to change schools to continue his geographical studies.
	I turn to another subject area concerning the difference between core foundation studies and other foundation studies, which are referred to in Section 354 of the current Education Act 1996 and in Clauses 80 and 81 of the Bill. In Committee on 28th May, I commented (at col. 1187 of the Official Report) on the apparent absence of any definition of those expressions and the need for a definition. I have since learned that the expressions stem from Section 2 of the Education Reform Act 1988, now repealed, where they also appear without definition. Despite the inconvenience of having no definition of core foundation and non-core foundation studies, I have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake and unhelpful to put down any amendment at this stage.
	I had a duty to declare my interest in geography. I regard myself as having discharged that duty in Committee. Therefore, I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating it. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the case that has been put by the noble and learned Lord, but perhaps I may pose a question. The letter from the noble Baroness was very warm and enthusiastic—indeed, it was both sympathetic and empathetic—in regard to geography being important and wanting to encourage it and develop it in the curriculum at key stage 4. However, if it is to be offered as a subject for young people to study as of right, it has to appear somewhere in legislation for a child to be able to exercise his or her right to learn geography if it is being singled out as an entitlement in secondary schools. Therefore, the letter on its own is not enough. If the terms of the amendment are to be acceded to, then the amendment itself ought to appear on the face of the Bill.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is quite clear that geographers are better organised than historians. Personally, I would put history up there with geography, or even a little ahead of it. What is crucial is that people learn to study people. Our education needs to include not merely mathematics, sciences and dry facts; it should get down to the interaction between people and an understanding of how people work. We are going to live the rest of our lives among people. The more that we know about them and the more we know about ourselves and where we are coming from, the better. But I place my hopes in Clause 82.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I have anxieties about history, as I do about geography. These are based once again on a proleptic reading of the Green Paper, which talks about an entitlement to "a humanities subject" for 14 to 16 year-olds. I suppose that history, English literature and geography may be asked to compete for their place in a school.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, sadly, the answer seems to be the humanities GCSE, which unfortunately is now prevalent.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall try not to detain the House for long. I was delighted to meet with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Indeed, it was a great honour for me, and I enjoyed our discussions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that my letter goes on to state:
	"But we will need to consider very carefully the implications for schools of delivering entitlements—and, as the Green Paper notes, where changes to the curriculum are envisaged, there will be consultation on the detail of the changes. I am sure you will agree that we must proceed with care and that I have been as positive as I can be at this point".
	I am happy to give the noble Baroness a copy of my letter if it would be of use to her.
	Clause 81 re-enacts the provisions of Section 354 of the 1996 Education Act, in relation to key stage 4 only. It lists the subjects of the national curriculum that are currently compulsory at key stage 4 and which were last revised in 2000. Although geography was included as a foundation subject in the 1988 Act, it was never implemented at key stage 4. The subject was removed in response to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in 1993 as a means of providing schools with a greater opportunity to offer a curriculum that meets the distinctive talents and aspirations of individual pupils. Currently, schools are not required to offer geography at all, although most do.
	As I said, we recently concluded the consultation, and it would be inappropriate to alter the current curriculum requirements at this stage, before responses to the consultation can be fully considered and without the benefit of a consultation on this particular change.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, has said, the relevant proposal in the Green Paper is that pupils should have an entitlement to a subject in the humanities and a subject in the arts which schools will be obliged to make available to pupils who wish to take them. At this stage, we are still considering responses to the consultation and have taken no final decisions on curriculum changes. Therefore, while I cannot give the noble and learned Lord the assurance that he is seeking that all pupils will have an entitlement to geography under the new proposals, I hope that he will be reassured from my letter and from my remarks that our proposals to offer all pupils an entitlement to choose a humanities subject represent an advance for geography from the current statutory position.
	This House will have the opportunity to debate any future changes to the curriculum, and no doubt to discuss the merits of history, English literature, geography and other subjects. Such discussions are important. We shall obviously have debates in this House before any changes are made. Meanwhile, with genuine respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for all that she has done, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
	Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Interpretation]:

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 6, at end insert "defined as such in the Standard Industrial Classification issued by the Office of National Statistics"

Lord Campbell of Alloway: As your Lordships will no doubt appreciate, this amendment is merely for clarification of definition, as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has no bearing whatever on the principle of the Bill or the opposition of government, who are not inclined to entertain any such proposal. But I had the opportunity of having a word with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and explained that I wanted to put the Bill in its proper perspective, dealing with some errors that have crept in—and they are very few.
	The first is the suggestion that the structure of the 1999 Act, which amended the consolidation Act of 1992, may not be readily amended to include statutory restriction proposed by this Bill, superimposed on extant law.
	Secondly, the Bill is concerned only with containing disproportionate industrial action in the designated public services and only at the behest of the trade unions. It is not concerned with an individual right to strike or with wildcat strikes.
	Thirdly, the Central Arbitration Committee is to be given mandatory powers only within this limited context by statute, and otherwise retains its present voluntary role.
	The High Court exercises civil, not criminal, jurisdiction and enforces its orders only against trade unions or the officers of a trade union if they are in contempt of an order of the court.
	Lastly, the suggestion appears in the Official Report that Lady Castle of Blackburn's In Place of Strife proposals were implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. They were not, to my personal knowledge. They were operated by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, whom I served at the time, under the Heath administration, in the days of Vic Feather in 1971. As the House would expect, these matters have been discussed with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. His position is respected and understood. This is not the occasion on which to renew our debate. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I support both amendments tabled by my noble friend, which are an appropriate accommodation of the comments of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. However, I do not think that they will change the Government's mindset on the Bill, even if they are accepted. That is a pity. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told the House on Second Reading that the Government were reviewing the workings of their Employment Relations Act 1999. That review will take place against the favourable background of the industrial dispute figures for 2001, which the noble Lord also gave the House. He then asked:
	"what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector? Clearly, there are threats of disputes . . . But the facts do not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of industrial disputes in the public sector".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; cols. 871-72.]
	We must all wonder how long that statement will stand, as trade union disaffection with the Government and their policies grows—witness the RMT's withdrawal of support from the Deputy Prime Minister and 13 other Labour Members or the rumblings in the Communication Workers Union. That may be a foretaste of things to come.
	Finally, the trouble with legislation in this area is that it is usually introduced just before or just after major conflict. There is much to be said for anticipating such conflicts well before they happen. That is the aim of the Bill. In line with the Performance and Innovation Unit report that my noble friend quoted on Second Reading, the Bill gives top priority to the customers of public services rather than to those who provide them. That is surely right.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not want to prolong the debate. Both the amendments tabled by my noble friend would improve and clarify the drafting in comparatively small ways. That is desirable. We all know the difficulties of pursuing a Private Member's Bill at this time of year, but that is no reason for not trying to improve the wording as much as possible. We also know the Government's view of the Bill, which was expressed clearly and in strong terms by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Second Reading. As my noble friend Lord Roberts said, there are threats at the moment. I have no wish to trespass on the current problems of the Labour Party vis-a-vis the trade unions, but we have noticed some recent comments. The Bill is not irrelevant to those remarks.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and all those who have not spoken. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy for his support from the Back Benches. Back-Bench support for the Bill is very welcome, although he is also a member of the Front Bench.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 7, after "order" insert "made by statutory instrument"

Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is a technical amendment and its purpose is self-evident. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.36 p.m.]

Education Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 83 [Establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 56, line 18, leave out subsection (12).

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 120, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 121.
	I have tabled the same amendments as we debated in Committee because I received a quite encouraging response from the Minister when I pointed out the sheer illogicality in this day and age of neglecting to teach in the science curriculum about one of the most serious threats to the health of the whole of mankind—HIV/AIDS—and about other sexually transmitted diseases. So I am hopeful of success if I pursue this matter.
	I also pointed out that it is important to teach young people in a way that is relevant to their lives and what is happening around them, and that reference to the science of HIV/AIDS is a very relevant way of teaching about the importance of the immune system and what happens when it breaks down. The subsections removed by my amendments make it illegal to teach about AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and aspects of human sexual behaviour, other than the biological aspects, in science lessons in schools in England and Wales. That is what I want to change. I think that it should be perfectly legal to include these subjects in the science curriculum for children of an appropriate age; indeed, it is essential.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out that Clauses 83 and 104, in which these subsections appear, merely re-enact part of a previous statute without changing it at all. She rightly asked the Minister why this should be done when the only valid reason for re-enacting part of a previous statute is to change it.
	Since we debated these amendments a few weeks ago, we have had a Question in your Lordships' House about the health of children in which I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to the fact that the number of new diagnoses of HIV/AIDS in this country doubled during the last five-year period for which I could find statistics. A high percentage of these victims are young people, very many of whom are heterosexual. Some are even babies who were born with the disease, having contracted it from their mothers in the womb.
	AIDS is one of the greatest scourges of our age. We are letting down our children if we do not teach them about the science behind it, including how it is transmitted and how devastating it is to the normal functioning of the human immune system. I also pointed out to the noble Lord that the incidence of gonorrhoea among teenagers doubled within the same period and that the incidence of chlamydia among teenage girls doubled in one year alone, between 1999 and 2000. There is clearly a great need for more and better teaching about these issues, and, crucially, children need to understand the science behind them. When they understand that, they will see the logic behind the lifestyle advice on safe sexual practices which they receive in sex education lessons in other parts of the curriculum. It is a matter of joined-up education.
	Ofsted has already identified the problems caused by this ridiculous law. Its report Sex and Relationships stated:
	"Education about HIV/AIDS is receiving less attention than in the past, despite the fact that it remains a significant health problem".
	It continued:
	"In secondary schools, the teaching at Key Stage 4 was better than at Key Stage 3. At both key stages teaching about sexual health, including sexually transmitted infections, and the law in relation to sex, was poor in one in five lessons".
	One of the reasons for this may be confusion among teachers about what they can and cannot legally do in relation to HIV/AIDS and a lack of confidence in tackling a difficult but vitally important subject.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments and change education law on this matter so that our children can be given the protection of good information. I beg to move.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I support the amendment. I tabled the Question on young people's health to which the noble Baroness. Lady Walmsley, referred. It is an important issue. A key point is that personal, social and health education is not a statutory part of the curriculum. Therefore, there must be a statutory provision to teach aspects of sexual behaviour and sexual health to improve young people's sexual health and well-being. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may come as a surprise to noble Lords to hear that I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It seems to me that science lessons constitute the right forum in which to teach the science of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity. However, there is a practical difficulty in that some parents withdraw their children from sex education lessons—they have the legal right to do so—but it is not beyond the wit of schools to ensure that parents know where that subject will be inserted in the curriculum. In fact, they have an obligation to tell parents how that subject will be taught and what modules of the curriculum will include it to enable parents to exercise their legal right in that regard.
	However, I ask again: what is the purpose of subsection (12)? Unless my memory serves me badly—I am prepared to believe that that might be the case—my understanding was that the science curriculum could include some of the science aspects of some of the matters that are listed in subsection (12) of Clause 83. It would be helpful to know precisely the purpose of subsection (12). As I say, I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who included the provision in a previous Act? It would be interesting to know that. I thought that parents could withdraw their children from sex education but not from science. I may be ignorant on the matter but I hope that the Minister can put me right.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much support the amendment, certainly as regards deleting paragraph (a) of subsection (12) which concerns a most interesting aspect of the immune system. All kids know about AIDS in one way or another. It is a fascinating bit of science as to why AIDS is such a difficult disease to attack—it affects the immune system from the inside—and that adds greatly to people's understanding of the dangers posed by the disease. It is a matter of science. I do not see why we should seek to exclude a useful bit of scientific knowledge on the ground that it might in some way verge on the PSHE curriculum from which we want people to have a right to withdraw.
	I do not agree that we ought to use the science curriculum to teach pupils about sexual health. That is not what the science curriculum is intended for. But we should not have to blank out bits of science because they happen to have relevance to a subject from which we give parents the right to withdraw their children. I do not see that paragraph (b) of subsection (12) is ever likely to be included in any science curriculum short of degree level. I have not seen anything that touches on it in any science curriculum that I have ever seen. I do not suppose that something that deals with such rare and ordinary diseases is likely to come reasonably into a broad and general science curriculum at the compulsory age levels.
	Paragraph (c) of subsection (12) refers to a matter that is often seen in nature programmes on television. It is a pity that one is not allowed to draw parallels between what children are exposed to routinely on television and what goes on between people in that regard. I refer to a most interesting aspect of ourselves as living creatures. One should be able to draw parallels between our behaviour and that of animals. I certainly do not see the reason for ruling that matter out of the science curriculum.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, to differentiate between the curriculum in England and that in Wales one has to move chunks—forgive the vernacular—of legislation and tidy them up. One does not extract little bits and pieces. I hope that that technical explanation will suffice.
	I have consulted on the matter as a result of the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked in Committee. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, included the measure we are discussing in previous legislation.
	In Committee I agreed to take the matter away and reflect on the debate. I believe I made clear that it is not a question of what can lawfully be taught in the classroom. The subsection we are discussing does not prohibit teachers from teaching the topics that are listed but it prohibits them from being included in the programmes of study for science. By removing the subsection we could, if we wished to, amend the programmes of study for science to make the teaching of those topics compulsory. However, we do not have plans to do that.
	I have reflected on the points made in Committee. I agree with what has been said on all sides of the House. I concluded that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right; the relevant subsections are unnecessary. Accordingly, the Government accept the amendments as drafted.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, all I can say to the Minister is, "Thank you very much". There are not many amendments to the Bill which, if accepted, would save lives, but this is one of them. I thank the Minister warmly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 104 [Establishment of the National Curriculum for Wales by order]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 68, line 28, leave out subsection (12).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 116 [Review Body: function]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 121ZA:
	Page 73, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) In discharging its functions under this section the Review Body shall have regard to the need to ensure that—
	(a) the conditions of employment of school teachers which relate to their working time are such that they may have a reasonable amount of time during each school day, or by such other allocation of time as may be appropriate, for the purposes of discharging professional duties other than those of teaching pupils;
	(b) the conditions of employment of school teachers which relate to their working time are such that they may have an amount of time during each school year for the purposes of their own professional development without unreasonably increasing their overall workload;
	(c) the conditions of employment of school teachers which relate to their professional duties are consistent with regulations made under section 129(1) and are such as may be appropriate to secure a balanced working relationship between persons employed as school teachers and others employed to work at each school; and
	(d) teachers employed on a day to day or other short notice basis may be remunerated in such manner as may be appropriate to encourage them to take opportunities available to them for their own professional development and further training."

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to one we moved in Committee. It gives us a chance to probe the Government's intentions a little further on the need for non-contact time and time for professional development for both full-time and part-time teachers. The amendment also seeks to ensure that teachers have suitable conditions to work effectively with the growing band of other staff, such as classroom assistants, who now work in our schools.
	In Committee the Minister expressed considerable sympathy with the issues raised in the Official Report of 28th May at column 1208. But she said in column 1209 that,
	"To impose the requirements in this amendment would greatly fetter the discretion of the STRB to consider current facts and prevailing circumstances and to make recommendations independently".
	However, she also made the welcome statement that,
	"the STRB's statutory recommendations are as a matter of principle accepted by Government unless there are overriding reasons not to do so. That was the commitment from the start".—[Official Report, 28/5/02; col. 1209.]
	I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister what is meant by,
	"overriding reasons not to do so"?
	Could it be cost or lack of sufficient staff to cover the non-contact time, or what? Can the Minister tell us how the remodelling working party is getting on with its work and about the Government's progress on the workload review? Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to support schools in the provision of non-contact and professional development time, and will extra funds become available? As there is nothing else in the Bill to address the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, we see the amendment as a means of probing the Government's plans on one of the most pressing problems facing our schools today.
	The Government seem to be relying to a great extent on what might come out of the Comprehensive Spending Review but, although that is important, schools are losing staff now. Placing some reassurance on the record that the Government will provide the cash needed to support the hoped for recommendations would be very welcome.
	The whole issue of learning support staff and classroom assistants is one that the Government have still not fully grasped. Paragraph (c) of the amendment refers to that. Although primary school teachers may have 15 minutes of non-contact time in the day, many schools employ classroom assistants for hours that exactly match the teaching sessions. That means either that the teacher has no time for the very necessary liaison work with support staff, which makes for a well-ordered and productive working partnership in the classroom, or that that has to be done on a voluntary basis in the teaching assistant's own time. Many of those workers are very low paid indeed and it is unreasonable to expect them to give of their own time to do something that is absolutely vital if the job is to be done properly. Teachers need the time and the training to be able to manage such support staff properly, especially because some newly qualified teachers have never managed another member of staff before in their lives.
	While we are on the subject, can the Minister say something about the way in which the Government plan to encourage schools and LEAs to reward newly trained classroom assistants properly and whether they intend to put in place a proper employment structure and a coherent training and development programme with appropriate remuneration at each stage?
	The Minister will be aware that we on these Benches are very keen on the "Grow your Own" route into qualified teacher status as an additional route to the usual degree and PGCE or MEd qualification. The growth of the classroom assistant workforce gives a great opportunity to train more teachers—mature people who are very familiar with what life is really like in a classroom and therefore much less likely to get a shock and to leave the profession after a year or two. Can the Minister tell the House how she plans to use this opportunity to address the recruitment shortfall in schools? I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issues raised in Amendment No. 121ZA are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and they have given rise to some important questions. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that she raised and I am glad to have this opportunity to respond.
	I am well aware of the importance of securing professional time for all teachers for preparation, planning, marking and related matters, and of the need to reduce the time teachers spend on administrative tasks. Those are important and, at this point in the history of education, highly relevant aspirations. Timetabling arrangements generally provide most teachers in secondary schools with some free periods, although we also appreciate that the school day is not simply taken up with teaching; teachers are involved in many other matters. I know from my own experience of being a chair of governors that in primary schools the position can be much more difficult. This is an important issue.
	It is for precisely that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew this matter specifically to the attention of the review body, when she asked it to consider the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on teacher workload and to make its own recommendations on that. The remit letter that she gave the review body drew specific attention to the possibility of moving towards a guarantee of professional time for teachers and managers; of more support staff and better use of ICT—new technology—to free teachers for their core professional role; and of considering changes to contracts to assist with embedding the role of continuing professional development. It is a key concern to all of us for many reasons that teachers have sufficient time to carry out professional duties properly and to undertake continuing professional development, both of which lead to higher standards of teaching and learning.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the STRB's workload report has been published and we are now in the middle of a constructive consultation—the working party is progressing well—on the helpful recommendations that were made, several of which deal precisely with the matters that are raised in the amendment.
	The noble Baroness asked an interesting question about the phrase "overriding reasons". She will be aware that one always has to be cautious of always saying that one accepts everything. For example, technical pay structure issues may be rejected. Inevitably, one has to look at the workability, as it were, of what is happening. There is also an issue of cost, which has tended to lead to staging. One cannot always say categorically that everything will always be available. The phrase "overriding reasons" is meant to imply that the matter will not be taken lightly; it does not involve simply deciding to reject. The Government's record in that regard is good.
	I turn to the key reasons for resisting the amendment. We believe, in the first place, that it is inappropriate to seek to introduce into primary legislation a matter that is currently the subject of quite separate and important consultations. Consultations on the principles underlying the STRB's recommendations are continuing and there will be further consultation on detailed proposals in September, in the light of feedback on the STRB's report and the outcome of the spending review. The spending review is an important part of the way in which government work. It is the determination of what moneys are available. Within that, departments are clear about their priorities. In various speeches that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given during the past year, and in her approach to this issue, she has made it clear that supporting teachers is a crucial part of the matter.
	These are sensitive issues. We want an outcome that is good for teachers, that is realistic and workable within the available resources and which at the same time supports improving standards. In this context, the amendment is a little restrictive. I appreciate the need for "early wins" but we are taking that very seriously in current discussions with interested parties and seek to ensure that we get it right.
	My second reason for resisting the amendment is that the current pay machinery, whereby the STRB works in accordance with a public remit provided by the Secretary of State, strikes the right balance and works well. It makes no presumptions about the content of the teachers' contract. We believe that the amendment would introduce such presumptions. The STRB's duty is to make independent recommendations. As we have discussed, we have said as a matter of principle that those recommendations are accepted by the Government unless there are overriding reasons.
	The Secretary of State can require the STRB to take certain matters into account when making its recommendations, as has been the case with the latest workload report. But the recommendations are the STRB's and government evidence is taken into account along with all other representations. It would be wrong to fetter the operation of the pay and conditions determination machinery. I know also that the teacher unions would not want to see contractual provisions in primary legislation.
	The noble Baroness raised an important point about classroom assistants and the need to ensure that they have sufficient time. I shall take that important point away and write to the noble Baroness about it. I am sure that it is being well dealt with but I do not want to give half an answer when I could give a more efficient one. She rightly said that classroom assistants contribute to education. Some of them may find that that work provides them with an opportunity to become teachers in future. We shall seek to ensure that those opportunities and pathways are available to them.
	We are grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing us to discuss this issue but we believe that the amendment would not be helpful in terms of the operation of the STRB. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The NUT and other teaching unions will take some comfort from her words of clarification and encouragement from the Dispatch Box and from her comments on the interaction between qualified teachers and teaching assistants. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 121A:
	Page 80, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) is under the direction or the direct supervision of a qualified teacher."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 121A, and Amendment No. 121B, which is grouped with it, both relate to the subject of assistant teachers. The purpose of the amendments is to tease out from the Government the precise difference between those teachers and the present teaching assistants, and to discover precisely how they envisage they should be used in the classroom. There is a great deal of suspicion—I admit that I share it—that we are talking about a form of substitute teacher.
	At the outset, I should inform noble Lords that I contacted staff in the Public Bill Office, who promised that they would make an alteration for me. The word "or" in Amendment No. 121A should be "and", so that the amendment reads,
	"is under the direction and the direct supervision of a qualified teacher".
	I know that that will not be accepted on the Floor of the House as a manuscript change. I shall not be pressing the amendment this evening but, if I return with it at a later stage, it will come back in its amended form. Therefore, I reiterate that the wording should not read, "direction or the direct supervision"; it should read, "direction and the direct supervision".
	Under whatever new ideas the Government may have for the use of teaching assistants, they may intend that they should be under the direction, and, indeed, under the direct supervision, of a fully qualified teacher—in other words, that they should not be left unsupervised to take whole classes on their own. The Government may not accept the wording of the amendment, but it seems to me that the easiest way to allay both my concerns and those of many teachers would be to accept that teaching assistants will be under the direction and under the direct supervision of a qualified teacher. If the Government are not prepared to accept that wording, I believe it is important that they set out the matter more clearly. Simply stating in Clause 129(1)(b) that such teachers must satisfy specified requirements without giving any indication as to what the parameters of those specified requirements will be is not acceptable. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying the issue of "or" and "and". That makes more sense to me and I am perfectly happy to discuss the amendment on that basis.
	The difficulty that I have in relation to Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B is that, in a sense, they fundamentally change the effect and purpose of Clause 129. I want to address the effect of the amendments but I shall speak slightly more broadly about the intentions behind them.
	Through this clause we are trying to give schools greater scope and flexibility to utilise the full range of skills and abilities of their staff by setting a framework of supervision. That is in order to ensure that we allow certain unqualified staff to undertake work which we shall describe as "of a teaching nature" in support of their qualified colleagues. At the same time, the framework of supervision is there to safeguard the professional status of qualified teachers and to ensure that their primary responsibility for delivering education in schools is not undermined. In addition, the clause is drafted to provide for particular categories of unqualified teaching staff, such as overseas trained teachers and graduate and registered teachers. Perhaps I may concentrate for a moment on that latter point.
	If we accepted the amendment, it would mean that specified teaching work could be undertaken by any person under the direction of a qualified teacher. Of course, legally all staff in schools, from the caretaker to the deputy head teacher, work under the management and direction of the head teacher. The senior manager is also required to be qualified. Therefore, if the amendments were accepted, any member of staff in a school could, in practice, undertake the teaching work specified in the regulations. I know that that is not the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment, but it is important to understand that that would be the effect.
	Secondly, it would not be possible to make detailed provision for certain categories of unqualified teacher. The example that best illustrates that is the position of overseas trained teachers and graduates on employment-based routes to qualified teacher status. We intend that those unqualified teachers will be able to undertake teaching work in schools, as indeed they do at present, but only if they satisfy specified requirements. Those are identified in greater detail under subsection (4) of Clause 129 and will relate, for example, to their being on programmes or courses of training to obtain qualified teacher status or the possession of a suitable qualification.
	In addition, subsection (5), which relies on the words that would be deleted by the amendments, provides that regulations may limit the period of time during which teaching work may be carried out by an unqualified teacher. Therefore, for example, a graduate on an employment-based teacher training route who did not qualify within the appropriate period would no longer be able to teach. And overseas trained teachers would, as now, be allowed to teach only for a limited time if they did not gain QTS. The amendments would take away our ability to ensure that the employment position of those staff remains as it is now. Obviously those are important safeguards to ensure that teaching work is carried out by suitable persons. We would not wish to see them lost if the amendments were accepted.
	Perhaps I may focus for a moment on what I believe the noble Baroness is seeking. We know that we now have within our schools adults who work alongside teachers and who undertake different tasks. Schools themselves are unsure as to what is appropriate and inappropriate use of teaching assistants. Having talked to people within schools, it is clear that they are looking to us to give them the framework in which to operate. As I said in Committee—I shall repeat it—it is intended that that framework should achieve two things: first, it should ensure that our qualified teachers are responsible for teaching and learning; and, secondly, it should ensure that classroom and teaching assistants are used efficiently and effectively where they can add value when working under the supervision of qualified teachers. Therefore, the intention is for the framework to enable those two things to happen and to allow schools to have the flexibility and scope to use their staff more efficiently.
	We have just revised the policy statement, which I am happy to send to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that it will help to allay her concerns on the matter. But I hope that I have also ensured that the House understands exactly what we are seeking to achieve through this clause. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer. I am still slightly mystified. A matter that puzzles me is that teaching assistants can now do almost anything in the classroom so long as they are under the supervision of a qualified teacher. They can help to teach reading; they can help small children with basic arithmetic; and they can do different kinds of tasks in a secondary school. They can do almost anything that the noble Baroness has mentioned thus far in all our debates and even as mentioned in the policy statement, which I now know has been overtaken and superseded by one which is more up-to-date.
	I am puzzled as to why the new type of teaching assistant is being created. I am told that there will not be two types; they will all become the new kind of teaching assistant referred to in Clause 129.
	Another concern is the wording of Clause 129. Teaching assistants are not mentioned. The wording is obscure. Clause 129 states:
	"Regulations may provide that specified work may not be carried out by a person in a school unless he—
	(a) is a qualified teacher".
	It does not state "teaching work", but "specified work" and we do not know what that will be. We do not know to what "satisfy specified requirements" refers. Subsection (2) states:
	"Regulations specifying work for the purpose of this section may make provision by reference to—
	(a) one or more specified activities, or
	(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out".
	The wording is obscure. Anyone could be forgiven for wondering what Clause 129 means. There is a great deal of suspicion and anxiety about the precise meaning of the clause and what it does for the status of a qualified teacher in the classroom.
	Throughout the Bill, with my amendments I have been striving for an honest description of what the Government aim to do. We do not want to find somewhere down the line that we are getting teachers on the cheap. That is the concern among teachers.
	The wise use of a teaching assistant can extend disproportionately the amount of work achieved by a teacher in the classroom. I am not convinced that teachers do not know how to exploit the talents of assistant teachers. I have been to many schools and have seen how incredibly effectively teachers will use a teaching assistant. Teaching assistants gather much experience over the years. I have always believed that there should be a proper system of validating some of the qualifications they gather on the way.
	There is a pertinent point to be made as regards special schools. I have been in special schools where assistant teachers have gathered much experience over the years of working in the classroom with children with special needs, certainly more than the newly-qualified teachers coming in straight from college. It seems to me that, first, they are paid badly and always have been, and, secondly, there is a case for validating their qualifications and ensuring that they are properly recognised.
	I do not deny that there is a proper role and the scope for that to be used as a stepping stone into teaching, as was mentioned by the Minister. I shall withdraw the amendment and await the new policy paper. However, it would be helpful to know that we shall not find ourselves by stealth with teaching assistants who at the end of the day turn out to be substitute, unqualified teachers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 121B not moved.]
	Clause 132 [Provision of education]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 121BA:
	Page 82, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations made under subsection (1)—
	(a) shall not prohibit the provision of education by a person employed full-time who does not have a specified qualification for two years after taking up a first appointment in a further education institution, provided that person embarks on a course leading to such a qualification within that period;
	(b) shall not prohibit the provision of education by a person employed part-time who does not have a specified qualification for four years after taking up a first appointment in further education, provided that person has embarked upon a course of study leading to such a qualification within that period; and
	(c) may make different provisions as to the specified qualifications and other matters for those engaged in the provision of education on a part-time basis from those engaged full-time.
	( ) In determining the qualifications to be specified under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent to which the qualifications match the standards laid down by any body recognised by her as being responsible for determining the competencies required for persons providing further education."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. It relates to the training of further education staff. In Committee we agreed that many of the staff come from unconventional backgrounds and that the training requirements laid down in the Bill are not necessarily appropriate to them. In particular, there was concern about the arrangements agreed under the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO) standards and the procedures which met those standards which had been agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at an earlier stage. We sought clarification as to whether or not those agreements still applied.
	The Minister was extremely helpful in his reply, for which we are grateful. However, the Association of Colleges, on whose behalf we tabled the amendment, was a little unhappy. The Minister's explanation repeated the position already reached in public discussion. The association believed that there was still a problem because he did not explain how, technically, the Government intend to frame regulations to give effect to that policy. It would appear to allow only regulations which prohibit the undertaking of teaching by persons who are not qualified. That formulation would preclude the drafting of regulations which would allow teaching by unqualified persons in certain circumstances. I refer, for example, to persons in the first two years of full-time employment who are pursuing a recognised qualification.
	Some explanation of the scope of the regulations and how they fit in within the powers granted within this clause would be helpful. I tabled the amendment to seek further explanation on those issues and wonder whether the Minister can help. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to clarify what I hoped I had established in Committee, but I recognise the points she has made. I shall do my best to have a better shot at it this time around.
	The timescales currently set out in regulations were established on advice from FENTO, the standards setting body for further education. For a full-time teacher the qualification must be obtained within two years of a place becoming available; for a part-time teacher the qualification must be obtained within four years of a place becoming available. Those timescales obviously ease the burden on part-time staff, particularly those who have other current employment, and provides sufficient flexibility to acquire the qualification in service and in stages, as appropriate to their role. It is our intention to continue that policy in the new regulations.
	It is reasonable for a student to expect those who teach in further education to be qualified, both in their own subject and in teaching practice. If not, it is reasonable to expect that they should become qualified at the earliest opportunity. Of course we provide support from the Standards Fund, through the Learning and Skills Council, to cover both the costs of teacher training and the staff cover costs so that new staff can be released from teaching duties in order to gain the qualification.
	As I mentioned in Committee, we recognise that there is heavy pressure on teachers in their first year of teaching. We maintain that the support given to the staff in the way that I have just outlined, together with good management practice, eases the burden of actual teaching in the college. It should ensure that the lecturer can achieve the teaching qualification without too great a burden being placed upon him. So we look to the colleges—as they have always argued that they are in favour of qualified staff—therefore to assist in the development of the policy.
	I can confirm that it is our intention that the existing regulations relating to the qualifications for teachers in FE colleges will continue in force, subject to minor modification for clarification purposes. We do not at this stage plan changes to the timescales, which differentiate between full and part-time staff, as I have indicated. Our intention is to re-enact provisions in Section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988, as part of the rationalisation of that section. As I sought to make clear in the debate on the amendment in Committee, if we are to ensure high standards of provision in FE, it is crucial that these powers are retained.
	Whether a member of staff is employed full-time or part-time should make no difference to the standard of teaching received by the learner. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel reassured by that explanation.
	In Committee the noble Baroness described the clause as "rather bleak". I looked at it and I agree with that description. It is expressed as a series of negatives and I understand the bleakness of it. The clause needs to be read with Clause 136(1), which effectively gives a power to make exemptions from the regulations, and a more general provision in Clause 204 where any regulations can make provision generally or only in specified cases. The regulations do not apply to anyone who was a teacher at a further education college or at a maintained school before 1st September 2001. There is also an exemption for a,
	"person whose primary occupation or profession is not teaching and who is employed by the college on a temporary or occasional basis to provide updating on current industrial, commercial or professional practice".
	I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises that one of the great strengths of the FE system is its ability to call in expertise from people practising in commerce and in business. They are not teachers. It would be unreasonable to expect them to obtain teaching qualifications. But they are able to give the latest insight into the practice in the world which they occupy and bring that into the educational framework. We greatly value that. It is that category of person that we would ensure will continue to be exempt from these provisions. We have no plans to change that exemption although we may make minor changes to the wording in the light of experience.
	If we produced changes to regulations we would feel obliged to discuss them with FENTO, with the employers and with the trades unions because we recognise the great sensitivity and interest in the matter. All interests would be considered. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured more fully than she was in Committee. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That was a most helpful reply. I felt that we had an adequate reply in Committee. However, the Association of Colleges still had these queries. It is extremely helpful that the Minister has set the matter out at such great length. I think that the association will be delighted with the reply. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 138 [Prohibition from teaching, etc.]:

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 121C:
	Page 85, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) Where a person is a parent of a child at a school, and the work in question under subsection (2) or (3) is provided voluntarily and without payment to or on behalf of the school in question, the Secretary of State, in relation to England, or the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to Wales, shall issue guidance as to—
	(a) the circumstances under which such a parent should be checked for his status under this section;
	(b) the persons who shall be permitted to know that such a check has been requested;
	(c) the steps that should be taken, if a parent fails such a check, in relation to informing teachers, pupils and their parents of this fact."

Lord Lucas: My Lords, the last word in the second line of the amendment as printed on the Marshalled List should read, "by". The amendment then makes a little more sense.
	I ask the Minister for a reassurance that this part of the Act will not be brought into force until the systems that will be needed to operate it are running rather more perfectly than they are at present. I checked with one county council about the status of the checking that we now, quite rightly, perform. It started about three months ago, if I remember rightly. The council said that during those three months it had made 400 requests. It had so far received three replies—three okays—and all of them were also on the list provided by the authorities of applications of which they had no trace. So there seems to be a fair state of delay and chaos in the system at present. We should not pitch the enormous amount of applications that will come from schools into that system until we are sure that that system is working correctly.
	We discussed the matter in Committee, and the Minister was kind enough to write to me afterwards, providing a good deal of explanation as to what was going on. It is clear from what was stated in the letter and what was said in Committee that parents who help out in schools will be caught by the clause, and specifically by subsection (3)(a), which states:
	"brings a person regularly into contact with children".
	If we are to place such an obligation on schools, we must be a little more helpful to them.
	If the school discovers that someone who has been working with children is on the register—specifically, on the sex offenders' register—and that that is why they fall under the clause, there will be a good deal of general uproar in the school community and questions will be asked as to why the case was not cleared earlier. We owe it to governing bodies and others in charge of schools to give them some kind of guidance about how they are supposed to deal with parents who come in to help with reading or with school trips. In village schools, it is often other members of the local community as much as parents who are involved in such activity. It would be a great comfort to governing bodies if guidance were set out for them to follow.
	I suggest that a sensible procedure for people who volunteer to help out in school would be for the process of checking them out to start immediately but that they should be allowed to serve two or three days in schools before they are cleared, because the process will clearly take some time. The first part of the amendment is intended to ensure that the process works smoothly for the school.
	Secondly, what do we do if a parent or some other member of what the school would regard as its community fails such a check? It will be devastating for the parent and the child for the parent suddenly to be exposed as someone not considered suitable to be around children. That is something for which a school must be prepared.
	If we are to believe the BBC—I do not know from where it gets its figures—there are 200,000 paedophiles in this country. That is the figure that it was advertising widely in advance of its latest programme on the subject. That means that roughly one in 100 parents will be a person who should fail such a check. So schools should expect parents to fail quite often. There may be many instances in which parents will fail such a check once the provision is fully in force; there will certainly be some.
	In any case, it will be a delicate matter for schools to handle. When they discover that, are they meant to tell everyone? If not—and the Minister shakes her head—they will have to be very careful about how they carry out the check; who knows that the check has been carried out; and how the negative result is transmitted to the parent. Otherwise, it will become known anyway, without the school having to broadcast it, because such matters will travel fast and far. So, there is scope for guidance and for the department to tell the school how it should behave in those circumstances. That is what I seek to achieve, although I will be delighted if there are other ways of doing it. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my amendment deals with something slightly different but is, nevertheless, to do with criminal checks. I have no intention, despite what I shall say about the way in which the system works, of speaking against the need to check the background of people who work with young children. It is a real issue, and the policy was decided by the team who worked with me at the Home Office before the 1997 election.
	The introduction of the system has been horrendous. The problems appear to be insuperable. On 8th May, Philip Johnston wrote in the Daily Telegraph:
	"Two months after the agency started work, long delays in vetting teachers and care workers are being reported by the agencies that recruit them. The problems are so acute that Estelle Morris, the Education Secretary, has urged David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to take a personal hand in improving the system".
	He went on to say:
	"Teachers, care workers and others who work with children or vulnerable people need an 'enhanced disclosure' check from the CRB before they can take up an appointment . . . The system has now been centralised under the CRB, which is supposed to complete 90 per cent of the checks within 15 working days. But only 10 per cent have been completed within that time and agencies say thousands of supply teachers have been waiting for up to 12 weeks—causing many to look elsewhere for work".
	Marcia Roberts, the director of external relations for the Recruitment & Employment Confederation said:
	"Along with many other organisations we have been warning the CRB for months that it was underestimating the likely demand for checks. All our fears have now been realised".
	The delay causes huge problems. The Government have underestimated the impact of an Act of Parliament that was going to affect every teacher and every person who works in a school—the cleaners, the caretakers, the gardeners, the contractors on site, every volunteer, every mother who comes in to help with reading. I am talking only about the education system, never mind the health system or other public services. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:
	"The CRB system is an absolute disaster. Now, the Government is going back to an unsatisfactory situation because there's been a monumental cock-up".
	I use the words of other people. They work in education and are directly affected by the problems. It is dismaying to see that the company that has been given the work is Capita, the consultancy that also operated the individual learning accounts. It is not surprising that people are concerned.
	I have one or two technical questions. On page 8 of the guidance document sent out by the department, there is a reference to health issues. The document says:
	"Anyone appointed to a post involving regular contact with children or young people should be medically fit".
	My question is technical, but it is important. My understanding is that one cannot discriminate against someone with HIV/AIDS. If, however, staff must be medically fit, will someone with HIV/AIDS be excluded by that part of the guidance?
	On page 10, the following question is posed:
	"What checks should be made on applicants for teacher training courses?".
	My understanding is that courses that start after March 2002 should be asked to apply for enhanced disclosure. I understand that and agree with it. However, should there be a further check when someone takes up a post? All the rules say that they should because they would be working for a different employer in, perhaps, a different part of the country. It would be helpful to know whether the certificate of clearance can be passported around the country from job to job.
	The promises about how long it would take to process applications have not been kept. It would be helpful to know what will happen on that front. Every member of staff, volunteer, or contractor working on site who comes in contact with the children in our 24,000 or so schools has to be paid for: an application on behalf of each one of them, costing £12, will be a great expense on the education budget. I know that the guidance says that the cost for schools will be met by the LEAs, but I wonder whether that has been recognised in the budget provision.
	I turn to the new checks and the requirement for disclosure, which is why I asked the first question about newly-qualified student teachers. Paragraph 38 of the guidance says that where persons take up,
	"a new appointment with a different employer, are re-appointed or re-elected as a governor, have a break in service of three months or more, or move to a post with significantly greater responsibility for children, or if the employer, school, further education institution or LEA has grounds for concern about their suitability to work with children",
	another check is necessary.
	Why must a person who has been a governor for many years have another check carried out on re-election? It is no good a Minister returning to the Dispatch Box to say that it is not necessary; it says in the guidance that it is necessary even if there is a current, properly certified clearance document. That seems excessive. Of course we do not want unsuitable people working with children, but this is a belt-and-braces provision too far.
	The application form that has to be filled in is intrusive. It asks for information which is of no relevance to whether a person is suitable to work with children. Section E asks for additional information. It says that the information,
	"will help us to process your application more quickly".
	It asks for marital status and the number of financially dependent children under 18. It then asks for bank or building society account number, sort code, employment status and occupancy status, and mother's maiden name. Many people in this country who have bank accounts and sort code numbers often use their mother's maiden name as a kind of security check. That information has nothing to do with whether someone is suitable to work with children. Why is it necessary?
	One answer is that additional information will help to process the application more quickly. I should like to know precisely how that works. Furthermore, my understanding is that it is not a compulsory part of the form. Information given by Warwickshire County Council to its teachers states,
	"Unless otherwise told, please answer all questions in Sections A to H".
	That includes section E, from which I have quoted. What have bank accounts to do with finding out whether someone is suitable to work with children?
	The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me about the checks, for which I thank her warmly. But the letter did not deal with backlog and my concern about backlog needs to be addressed. Schools are losing volunteers and staff because they do not want to wait around. Some people in the community help with reading and tasks in the classroom in more than one school. It is excessive for them to be subjected to more than one check if they work in more than one school.
	The noble Baroness's letter states on the second page,
	"Parents who seek or offer to do work at a school should be checked in the same way as any other voluntary workers"—
	—I do not disagree—
	"However, these provisions do need to be applied with a degree of common sense".
	When there is guidance from the department, and detailed and pedantic guidance from the local authorities to the schools, they have to follow it, but the guidance is not applied with any degree of common sense.
	I have yet another missive—there is so much information concerned with criminal checks—this time from the Criminal Records Bureau of the Department for Education and Skills, but I have no date or other reference for it. On page 5, it states that elected governors should be checked after election. That is even if they were checked before the previous election and the one before that. That seems to be really excessive.
	The document also states that they must be checked before appointment. If there are weeks of backlog, how on earth can they be checked before appointment? Once selected, they are appointed to governing bodies within days—and sometimes sooner if they have previously been governors—but the idea that they are kept waiting is unacceptable.
	I am sorry that I have spent a little more time than usual on the amendment, but there are great anxieties in our schools. I believe that we are losing important assistance to our schools—that is, volunteers and members of staff—and the Government ought to re-examine the way in which the system is working.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I shall attempt to give them as full an answer as possible and to deal with the significant points they made.
	I shall begin with Amendment No. 121C. I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the position of parents who undertake voluntary work at their children's school. I hope that it will help to allay his concern to know that provision for checking parents who volunteer is not new. A school may not use the services of a person as a volunteer to work regularly with children where that person is subject to a direction and on my department's list of barred persons—list 99, as it is known. Therefore, where a school seeks to use a volunteer, including parents, to work in regular contact with children, it must be satisfied that that person is not on list 99. In other words, a check must be carried out.
	That has been the position since September 1998. However, the arrangements for checking list 99 changed in March this year when the Criminal Records Bureau became operational. Prior to March, a school or education authority could check the list directly and the person concerned would not necessarily know that the check had been made. There were also separate arrangements whereby education authorities could arrange criminal record checks with their local police forces. However, those checks could be made only if the person would have substantial unsupervised access to children on a regular basis.
	Since March, checks of list 99 are undertaken alongside criminal record checks by the Criminal Records Bureau as part of what are now called "disclosures". And we have now issued guidance advising that in addition to people who have regular contact with children, schools should also obtain a disclosure via the CRB in respect of anyone who is eligible to apply for one. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, and to follow up any questions. I hope that he will find it useful.
	We advise, for example, that any person who applies, seeks or accepts work with children at school should be asked to obtain a disclosure, regardless of whether the work is paid or voluntary. So, a parent or anyone else who volunteers to help out in the classroom should be checked.
	Another category of person who should be checked is anyone who applies for, seeks or accepts any position where his or her normal duties will include caring for, supervising, training, or being in sole charge of children. Perhaps I may give specific examples. Someone who volunteers to accompany pupils on a residential trip and will be responsible for looking after or supervising the children should be checked. On the other hand, we would not expect a volunteer who will have only limited contact with children on a single occasion to be checked; for example, someone who helps out on sports day or accompanies an outing to a museum or local activity.
	I can understand that noble Lords might be concerned that we should go too far in advising that parents who volunteer their services should be checked in the same way as other prospective volunteers and employees. However, being a parent does not of itself mean that someone is automatically suitable to work with other people's children or to have responsibility for them. It is a sad fact that a great deal of child abuse takes place within families and many of the people who are deemed unsuitable to work with children are also, unfortunately, parents—and in the case of Lauren Wright, who we will be discussing later, step-parents.
	A number of safeguards are built into the arrangements for disclosures to ensure that information is not disclosed indiscriminately, that checks cannot be made without the individual's knowledge and that the individual is told what information the checks reveal.
	In the first instance an application for a disclosure must be signed by the individual concerned to indicate his or her consent and then the person is sent a copy of the disclosure so that he or she can challenge any inaccuracy.
	If a check reveals that a prospective volunteer is on list 99, however, the same safeguards in regard to confidentiality apply to that information as apply to any information about a person's criminal record that is revealed by a disclosure. Such information is confidential and its disclosure is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 as well as the law of confidentiality. Also, the disclosure will be issued only to a person registered with the CRB and the Police Act 1997 provides that it is a criminal offence to reveal information supplied in a disclosure in a way that is not provided for in that Act.
	It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which any staff other than the head teacher would need to have access to the information and it would certainly not be acceptable for any information to be disclosed to pupils or their parents. Because the individual has to agree and sign to have that check, I think that those with something they would not wish to be known which would make it inappropriate for them to work with children might be discouraged. That is the process that we believe makes most sense in this context.
	There are two reasons why we believe that Amendment No. 130 is unnecessary. First, public authorities already have a duty to act reasonably in all circumstances, and they can be challenged in the courts if they do not. Secondly, as I have explained, there are already safeguards in place about the use of information provided by the Criminal Records Bureau.
	The amendment raises concerns about two aspects of the new arrangements for criminal record checks, now called disclosures, that are operated by the CRB: the level of personal information that is sought on the application forms for a disclosure; and the fact that a disclosure for the purpose of child protection reveals information about the whole of a criminal record that a person has, not only about offences against children.
	The CRB is clear that the information requested on its application form is needed to enable it to establish the identity of the applicant beyond doubt. That is necessary to ensure that highly sensitive information is not issued to the wrong person and that someone cannot obtain a disclosure by using another person's identity. The information requested is used only for the purpose of establishing and verifying the person's identity and is no more than people provide to a variety of organisations in the normal course of their lives—for example, when applying for a credit card. We believe that it is important to know precisely whom we are describing and talking about.
	I am conscious of the concern, particularly among parents and others considering voluntary work among children, that some youthful indiscretion that is not relevant to children might become known in the school or the local community. It is not possible to limit the information included in a disclosure only to that which is relevant to the position the applicant is seeking. A person's suitability for work with children is invariably a decision that can be made only on a case-by-case basis in the light of the circumstances of each instance.
	If we were to limit the information disclosed in the way the amendment suggests, schools would not be able to obtain information about drugs offences or offences of violence against adults. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would agree that such offences may well be relevant in assessing a person's suitability even if the offence itself did not directly relate to children.
	Also the department's guidance about vetting staff and volunteers that I mentioned earlier stresses that a person's suitability for work with children should be judged in light of all relevant information and that a criminal record does not automatically make a person unsuitable to work with children.
	The guidance advises employers to take account of a number of factors in deciding whether a criminal conviction is relevant: the nature of the offence; the age of the offence; the frequency of offences; and the nature of the appointment. A copy of the guidance is in the Library of your Lordships' House. I shall, of course, make it available to any noble Lords who wish to receive it. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured your Lordships on the two aspects of the amendment.
	I want to talk about the Criminal Records Bureau. It is a large and complex project and is experiencing difficulties. Those difficulties are being dealt with as a matter of urgency. When these initial problems are resolved, we believe that the bureau will provide a more comprehensive and much quicker service than was available under the previous arrangements.
	In the meantime, despite the vigorous efforts made by the CRB and noted by the noble Baroness, the position in regard to delays has not improved as quickly as we had hoped. We refuse to compromise on child safety, but we also need to make sure that the appointment of teachers can be done in a fast and efficient manner. We have therefore put in place interim arrangements to allow that. Those interim arrangements will stay in place until the CRB is fully up to date and meeting its performance standards.
	Under the arrangements, CRB staff are trawling the backlog of applications and checking new applications to identify those in respect of teachers and other key staff for schools. For those applications, the CRB is performing checks of list 99. If that check is satisfactory, the employer or agency will be able to appoint the person provisionally. The full criminal record and police check will be performed and the relevant disclosure issued by the CRB as soon as possible after that.
	I hope that, on the basis of my detailed explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful for that explanation. The noble Baroness has answered quite satisfactorily all the questions that I put to her. It will be a great relief when the system starts to work well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 121D not moved.]
	Schedule 14 [Inspection of nursery education]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 172, line 37, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Rights to require paperwork
	In paragraph 18 of Schedule 26 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (rights of entry), in sub-paragraph (2)(b) for "which he requires" there is substituted "which he reasonably requires"."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment concerns the amount of paperwork and other information that nursery schools will have to prepare for inspection. The amendment is simple and, until we considered this in Committee, I thought uncontroversial. It adds a specific test of reasonableness to the amount of paperwork that inspectors can require from nursery schools when undertaking inspections.
	I do not know how closely Ministers are in touch with the world of nursery education, or indeed with the professional world generally. One only has to glance at the articles, information and comment in the professional press to understand that the nursery world and the teaching world more generally are groaning under the weight of unreasonable demands for paper, partly from the process of inspection itself and partly from the need to comply with a whole range of constantly shifting demands for paperwork.
	More and more is piled on to this paper mountain, day by day. The latest demand, which we have discussed elsewhere, is for exhaustive, expensive and time-wasting criminal records checks. By that I refer to those over and above what is necessary to secure information checks on those working with children.
	We are also discussing elsewhere in the Bill massive new powers to regulate nursery schools in fields as extraordinary as sex education and religious education. How will their performance in those areas be inspected, may I ask? With no paperwork? I scarcely think so.
	If Ministers do not think that there is a case for a test of reasonableness so far as demands for paperwork are concerned, then I fear that such a response would send out the message that there is a total lack of understanding of the problems faced by nursery schools.
	I have studied carefully the Government response in Committee, but I regret to say that I was not convinced. Furthermore, those who have been in contact with me on this subject are also not convinced. By agreeing to a specific test of reasonableness, the noble Baroness would provide some reassurance to the world of nursery education. If she does not agree, I will certainly be reinforced in my belief that we need much wider-ranging constraints on the proliferation of regulation to be incorporated in this Bill along the lines of Amendment No. 34, which we discussed last week. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I want to make absolutely clear the reasons why I shall resist this amendment. It is not because I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that requests from Ofsted must be reasonable. That applies not only to the thousands of pre-school playgroups and day nurseries now subject to regular inspection by Ofsted, but also to schools, which for some time now have been inspected by Ofsted. The point I need to emphasise is that adding the word "reasonably" in this part of the legislation would add nothing. If anything, it could have the opposite effect. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain the position to noble Lords.
	As a public body, Ofsted is already under a public law duty to act reasonably in all its dealings with schools, nursery settings and childcare providers. A specific requirement to act reasonably in one aspect of its dealings with its customers is therefore otiose in law. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knows very well that adding unnecessary requirements does nothing to clarify the law and, at worst, casts doubt on a general duty to act reasonably. That would not help. We therefore think it better to leave the law as it stands.
	I shall say something about what Ofsted has been doing to reduce paperwork requirements. In recognition of the potential burden that Ofsted inspections place on schools and other establishments, it has already reduced its requirements for documentation. It no longer collects detailed staff and curriculum data, performance data from earlier years, or insists on schools supplying data to Ofsted's own format.
	Furthermore, the draft framework for school inspections from September 2003 takes this even further stating that, with the exception of the basic inspection forms, the documentation required by inspectors should be limited to what schools would normally expect to have available. The same principle applies to early years settings, in that documentation should not be written specifically for the inspection as that puts an undesirable burden on staff.
	Those wholly desirable changes have not been achieved through changes to legislation, but rather through the normal process of dialogue between public bodies and those they serve. I believe that we have a good dialogue and that Ofsted has responded well.
	For the reasons that I have given about the effect of the amendment—not the spirit behind it—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is disappointing. The noble Baroness said that my amendment was otiose. The Government have not been deterred from including otiose provisions in other parts of the Bill. There is so much that the Government have said that is being re-enacted from other Acts of Parliament.
	The test of reasonableness is not new in legislation. The amendment would simply change the clause to read, "which he"—the inspector—"reasonably requires". It would present nursery schools with at least a challengeable test. The Minister says that the inspectorate is expected to behave reasonably always, but that could be said of every part of government. The world of nursery education is concerned about the issue, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not hearing that concern. Small though the amendment may be, I have had unprecedented contact since we discussed the issue in Committee with nursery schools pleading with me to press on to try to win the battle.
	We shall be discussing later a whole new burden that will be put on nursery schools and it would be so easy for the Government to say that there ought to be a test of reasonableness when Ofsted requires information to be prepared ahead of an inspection. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is unable to respond to the amendment, but I cannot say that it is the last time that we shall discuss the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Before Clause 171, insert the following new clause—
	"DUTIES OF LEAs AND GOVERNING BODIES IN RELATION TO THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN
	(1) A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
	(2) The governing body of a maintained school shall make arrangements for ensuring that their functions relating to the conduct of the school are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children who are pupils at the school.
	(3) The governing body of an institution within the further education sector shall make arrangements for ensuring that their functions relating to the conduct of the institution are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children receiving education or training at the institution.
	(4) An authority or body mentioned in any of subsections (1) to (3) shall, in considering what arrangements are required to be made by them under that subsection, have regard to any guidance given from time to time (in relation to England) by the Secretary of State or (in relation to Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales.
	(5) In this section—
	"child" means a person under the age of eighteen,
	"governing body", in relation to an institution within the further education sector, has the meaning given by section 90 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13), and
	"maintained school" means a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 137.
	During the Committee stage I gave a commitment to respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, which sought to strengthen the current arrangements for child protection. These amendments now implement that commitment.
	Having listened to the arguments of the noble Baroness, and those of her right honourable friend, Gillian Shephard, I am convinced that by placing the education service's responsibilities for making child protection arrangements on a statutory basis, it will add further safeguards against child abuse. Moreover, in examining the issue, we have concluded that the arrangements need to go a little further than those that we debated in Committee. To place a duty solely on schools would leave gaps and might leave some children more vulnerable than others. That would clearly not be right.
	Amendment No. 123 would place a statutory duty on LEAs and on the governing bodies of further education institutions as well. LEAs should be covered by this provision, not least because of their role in representing schools on area child protection committees and their responsibilities for groups of children not currently educated in schools. As to the inclusion of further education institutions, we would be remiss if we did not ensure equity in arrangements for under-18s in these settings, particularly given the proposals in the 14 to 19 Green Paper.
	Before I conclude, I should like specifically to address the issue of enforcement of this new provision. For schools and local education authorities we shall have recourse to Section 497 of the Education Act 1996, which is ultimately enforceable by mandatory order. For FE institutions, the Secretary of State's powers of intervention contained within Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 will provide the enforcement mechanism. Failure by a head teacher or a member of staff to act in accordance with arrangements when they are in force would be grounds on which the governing body, or the employing authority in the case of LEA staff, could properly consider action against the individual either under disciplinary procedures or in terms of competence.
	However, the clause does not intend to give rise to private law actions by individuals against an education authority, school or FE institution for breaches of the statutory duties it contains.
	I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and her right honourable friend Gillian Shephard for bringing the tragedy of Lauren Wright and the implications of that case to the attention of this House. I hope that the whole House will again be able to support these amendments, which I believe will strengthen the protection afforded to the children in our education system—an objective which I know all noble Lords share. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for sending me a copy of the new clause as soon as she had it to hand. It was very helpful. As she has explained, one of our main concerns has related to the Lauren Wright case; namely, that the head teacher and assistant teacher in that case could not be disciplined although they had failed Lauren in every way. They had not followed the guidelines—but, then, they were only guidelines and had no force in law. Our anxiety is that this amendment will give that force in law, which I believe is what the noble Baroness said. I should like a reassured on the record that failure to observe the content of the guidance would result in some kind of disciplinary procedure, which I believe is the reassurance that the Minister has given me.
	Perhaps I may ask one or two questions. In subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, local education authorities are required to ensure that their arrangements are adequate. Who will judge what is adequate? Who will inspect the arrangements? Who will pursue LEAs that are not up to scratch?
	In subsections (2) and (3), governors are given responsibility with regard to children at risk. The noble Baroness has said that governors, as employers, would be empowered to dismiss or otherwise to discipline heads and teachers who in some way failed to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children at the school. But what powers would LEAs have if the governors failed in this respect? In such a case, could they discipline teachers who had failed?
	Lastly, is the Minister confident that this new clause will have the teeth that we want it to have? If that is all in order, it is my duty and great pleasure to say thank you to the noble Baroness. With her officials, she has come up with some very useful amendments.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, and I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. The intentions to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people are important and honourable.
	Can the Minister be a little more precise in defining the word "welfare"? It is slightly more difficult than defining "child" or "governing body". Does it apply only to children who are at risk or in need, for example? Following on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, can the Minister say how local arrangements might be developed in practice, including drawing up frameworks for action in schools and monitoring those frameworks? Again, what is the role of the LEA? Do the Government foresee guidance being developed on this? If so, the amendment is a very valuable one.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I warmly welcome government Amendment No. 123. I am delighted that the Minister has responded in her usual thoughtful way to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and the rest of us who spoke in Committee. Schools are on the front line with children and are in a good position to detect abuse and ensure that children receive the protection and services that they need. However, it is right that their duties in this matter should be made clear, as they are in Amendment No. 123.
	I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Massey of Darwin. I have a different question for the Minister about the resource implications of the new statutory duty that the amendment gives to schools. Teachers and officers of the LEA may need additional training, which costs money, and supply cover may be needed to enable them to benefit from the training offered. Will adequate consideration be given within the Comprehensive Spending Review to the additional funding that LEAs and schools may need to fulfil these important duties?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that the House has given the amendments. Because the guidance will be statutory, it will be subject to monitoring in the same way as all other statutory guidance. Governing bodies will be responsible for making arrangements in schools. It will be their responsibility to ensure that such arrangements are in force and it will be part of the normal framework of inspection to ensure that this is complied with. Anyone who feels that the issue has not been dealt with properly will have the right to object to the Secretary of State, who will be able to take action under the mandatory orders.
	Governing bodies or the local education authority act as employers in this context. Employment law would come into force. The noble Baroness knows far better than I do that in Lauren Wright's case there was nothing on which the governing body could take action. There was no basis on which they could act. Now there will be. We believe that this will go some way to improving the situation, but we shall monitor it, as we do all other issues of children's welfare. Welfare is defined as the health, happiness, prosperity and well-being in general of a person. In this context, it applies to all children.
	The amendment will give teeth. In considering what to do, we took the resource implications into account. It is for us to look into that. We gave careful consideration to the issue and we are responsible for that to ensure that the provisions work.
	As I said in Committee, we cannot bring Lauren back or do anything for her. I think that the amendment will help to ensure that such a tragedy could not happen again and the plight of a little girl like Lauren will not go unnoticed.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I have one question. She said that there was no action that could have been taken and no basis on which action could have been taken in Lauren's case. Even without these amendments, which I very much welcome, do not teachers have a duty of care to the children in their charge? Did not the foster parents have a duty of care? Did not the social workers and the LEA have a duty of care? Were they not all neglectful? Did not they all breach their duty of care?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is a much wider question. I do not want to give the wrong answer. The particular point that I was referring to was that in Lauren's case, there were no procedures for the head to follow and there was nothing that meant that the head could be disciplined for not taking appropriate action. We have sought to remedy that with the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, knows the case far better than I do, but I have read the details. Huge mistakes were clearly made by a number of agencies and individuals, of which the school was but one. We have said before in your Lordships' House that the stepmother was working as a lunchtime supervisor and therefore looking after other children. There is no question but that the situation that happened with Lauren was a tragedy of huge proportions. This is our response to it, by putting schools and local education authorities in no doubt as to what is required. Other agencies must do the same and I trust that they will do so.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Before Clause 171, insert the following new clause—
	"CONSULTATION WITH PUPILS
	(1) It shall be the duty—
	(a) of a local education authority, in the exercise of any of their schools functions, and
	(b) of the governing body of a maintained school, in the exercise of any function relating to the conduct of the school,
	to have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales) about consultation with pupils in connection with the taking of decisions affecting them.
	(2) Any guidance under this section must provide for a pupil's views to be considered in the light of his age and understanding.
	(3) In this section—
	"maintained school" means a community, foundation or voluntary school or a community or foundation special school;
	"pupil" does not include a child who is being provided with nursery education (whether at a school or elsewhere);
	"schools functions", in relation to a local education authority, means functions relating to—
	(a) maintained schools,
	(b) pupil referral units, or
	(c) the provision of education for children of compulsory school age otherwise than at school."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 124 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 138. I should like to pay tribute to the contributions of all noble Lords in Committee. It was clear that there was much support for the principle of ensuring that our children and young people participate more effectively in processes that affect them.
	These amendments are designed to provide an avenue through which we can ensure that LEAs and schools have access to best practice in actively involving young people when making decisions that affect them. We believe that at the present time the best way to do this is by issuing best practice guidance, sharing information about what many of our best schools do to motivate and involve young people and to raise standards. We do not believe that there is a single best way of doing this. However, we do believe that it is an important issue and one where guidance based on the best can make a very significant difference.
	The amendments recognise that many schools are already involving their pupils in different ways. Indeed, I genuinely struggled to recall the last school I visited which did not have a mechanism in place for doing so. I also recognise that schools have different mechanisms which apply depending on the age of the children and the way in which they discuss with the children how they wish to involve them. We want to encourage best practice so that it becomes the norm in all schools.
	So we intend to develop an approach that is not prescriptive but means that schools will be able to find the best way for them of involving young people. We do want to see young people involved more effectively. However, we believe that the issue of how best to achieve that will depend on the circumstances of the school. Our guidance will support schools to develop innovative approaches that work for them. It will offer a flexible menu of options. It will also allow schools to adopt the best-fit model of participation and adapt it over time as circumstances change. It will reflect that pupils have to be engaged differently according to their age and understanding.
	Amendment No. 124 ensures that we can pursue this approach. Amendment No. 138 is purely technical and ensures that certain definitions from the Education Act 1996 are read across to this amendment.
	Arrangements will also support the flexible citizenship programme of study, allowing schools choice in planning provision, and ensure that Ofsted inspectors will look at a broader range of provision when they come to judge how well schools are involving pupils in the running of their school.I beg to move.

Baroness David: My Lords, I do apologise for rising to speak to Amendment No. 125 after eleven o'clock at night—if I have counted correctly, there are 11 noble Lords in the Chamber—but I feel very strongly about this amendment. It is about a subject, hearing the views of children, about which I have spoken on many occasions over a very long time. Here is another opportunity, and I am afraid that I am going to take advantage of it. The other reason is that I have had very strong support for this amendment, for which I am grateful, from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who has had to leave, for which she sends her great apologies.
	I am grateful for the Minister's comments. The Government have gone some way, but not, I think, far enough. The purpose of this new clause is to fulfil our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under Article 12, states must,
	"assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
	When the Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the UK's initial report back in 1995, it noted that this and other general principles in the convention were not reflected consistently in our law and recommended that they should be. We regularly tell other countries that they must fulfil their human rights obligations, and we must do so too. This Government have done much towards creating a culture of human rights in this country. Building that culture for the future depends on children. Creating schools in which children feel valued as individual people whose views are to be taken seriously must be a big part of that process. So we need to deliver a clear message to local authorities, and to schools, and, above all, to children.
	Saying that schools must have regard to any guidance on consultation which the Secretary of State may give from time to time is not a clear message and is far from reflecting the clarity of Article 12. The Government's new clause is not satisfactory. Statutory guidance sounds strong and it is strong when the guidance relates to a body of legal duties, as with the code of practice on special educational needs, for example. But there is a complete vacuum in education law on respecting pupils' views.
	The Government's new clause simply leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide how far schools should be advised to go. The new clause does not in fact implement Article 12 at all. Local authorities and governing bodies will have to have regard to any guidance and should follow it unless they can think of a reasonable reason not to. The Minister has stated that Ofsted will check up on what schools are doing. In Committee the Minister on 9th May suggested that guidance will offer schools a flexible menu of options and allow schools to adopt a best fit model of participation and adapt it over time. The legal duty in our new clause does not prescribe a particular model of participation. The flexible menu will still be there to be developed and owned by schools themselves, but backed by an essential imperative to respect the principle.
	Of course schools need guidance and the encouragement of rigorous inspection. But all of that needs to be based on a clear legal duty. What seemed right to the current Secretary of State when she moved a similar "legal duty" amendment to the Education Bill 1993 is more than right today. One of our new schools Minister's last initiatives as a Back-Bencher was to table a similar new clause in Committee on this Bill in the other place. Our ministerial team are obviously really with us on this issue! The Government should have the courage of their strong human rights convictions and go for a proper duty as the basis for guidance and for inspection.
	For more than a quarter of a century, from the Children Act 1975, local authorities have been under a duty to respect the views of children in care. That duty was re-enacted and broadened in the Children Act 1989. There was no question of reducing that clear duty to statutory guidance. In Scotland the first education Act to be passed by the new Parliament includes a statutory duty to have regard to children's views in all decisions that significantly affect them. In education law there has been a principle of respect for parents' wishes in primary legislation since the Education Act 1944, and probably before that.
	This really is not an issue to be hesitant over. We know that good schools already respect pupils' views on decisions that affect them; some schools have always done so. The purpose of a legal duty is to ensure that all schools do so in relation to all significant decisions affecting pupils. As far as I can see, the only possible reason for preferring the Government's new clause to mine is if one does not want all schools to be required to respect children's views.
	One specific issue about the Government's new clause is its exclusion of nursery age pupils from even guidance on consultation. That seems very strange; there is no age limit on Article 12, and the habit of seeking and respecting children's views, which is not at all the same thing as following their views, should start young. That is important. You do not necessarily have to follow their views but you must try to hear them.
	NGOs, including Save the Children and the National Early Years Network, have promoted very positive initiatives to hear young children's views. The pioneering Children and Young People's Unit, a cross-cutting unit placed in the Department for Education and Skills, has been promoting participation by children across government. The DfES responded earlier this month with its action plan for the involvement of children and young people, which was entitled, Listening to Learn. Its vision is of,
	"a department which is young-person friendly and accessible, responsive to their needs and aspirations, and renowned throughout government for leading change in this area".
	I note that on page 12 the report prejudges the result of this debate and suggests that the department will develop statutory guidance on consulting pupils on decisions that affect them. However, if the department is serious about its vision and the timetable for achieving it, it must place a clear legal duty in the Bill. It has to be admitted that until very recently the Department for Education and Skills has lagged well behind the Department of Health in terms of respecting children's views. If it wants to be seen to be leading change, here is the opportunity. The Department for Education and Skills has not had a terribly good reputation in the past for being forward looking. Here is an opportunity for it to try to make that better.
	If the Minister suggests that there are technical problems with the amendment, as there probably are—there usually are—there is plenty of time to put that right if the Government, having accepted the principle that pupils have a right to be consulted, concede that there should be a clear legal duty.
	I hope that the Minister will change the Government's previous view and support the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I do not feel that government Amendment No. 124 is good enough, for three reasons. First, the Government are under a legal obligation to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified in December 1991. I do not see how the Government can possibly resist having a statutory right rather than guidance. When the United Kingdom Government were last examined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is the international treaty monitoring body for the CRC, it strongly recommended action in schools in terms of implementing Article 12, which gives children the right to have their views considered. The Government will next be scrutinised by the committee in the autumn. All the indications are that that committee is more or less certain to issue very critical comments about the UK's treatment of its children. The lack of a statutory right to be consulted is only one of many criticisms that are likely to be made. I am sure that the Government would not wish to be so embarrassed.
	The second reason is that consultation with children and listening to their views engenders a positive relationship between students and their teachers and it stresses a mutual respect and atmosphere of co-operation. The Government state that they would like more young people to be involved in politics and to use their right to vote. They cannot expect young voters to spring fully formed from the womb of the school and to rush to the polling station to put their vote in the ballot box unless they have got used to consultation, to considering the issues and to having those views respected. This would be a very good way of doing that. It would help to encourage young people to participate in the political process when they reach the voting age.
	Finally, the approach would bring English education law into line with developments in other public services. The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned the fact that the health service and social services consult children. I also refer to Scottish legislation and education law in many European countries; Scotland already gives pupils that statutory right. That legislation has been in force for more than a year and there have been no reported difficulties for schools or pupils. For those three very good reasons, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support both amendments. But, unless I hear arguments which are strongly contrary, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, is the one that I would prefer. It is clearly important to include an appropriate level of consultation with school pupils in areas which affect them. As has already been said by all three speakers, it is almost certainly the minimum that will be expected under human rights legislation and, indeed, under Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	It is clear that young people are very much better informed than they used to be. We can blame, or praise, modern methods of communication for that. They also have fairly straightforward views and criticisms of purely "adult-imposed" schooling requirements. The latest example of that was when young people spoke in support of a children's commissioner. Such an arrangement has been granted in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK. When young people spoke in support of a children's commissioner on 10th June, they illustrated very well how articulate they are.
	It is certainly my view that we need to listen carefully to young people's views. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that we should accept them. I must confess that I should have preferred a decision that the Education Bill should include full provisions for pupil governors. From what I have read in the press, I know that that does not seem to be totally popular with the teaching profession at present. But my views on that form of consumer representation were formed well over 50 years ago when I worked at the Architectural Association's School of Architecture. That organisation had had student governors for a long time, and very effective they were.
	I believe that other countries have such an arrangement at school level. I am told that South Africa, which borrowed much of its school law from us, allows for pupil governors. That country has decreed that the governors must be 16 years of age or older. What might be called the more "sensitive" issues are dealt with by an executive committee of the governors. In relation to the minimum requirements for consultation, as time goes on, there may be hope that this is but a first step in not too long a road to full, important inclusiveness of pupils' views.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, as I introduced in Committee the amendment on the issue of listening to children, I shall be very brief and far less poetic and metaphorical than the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	I am very pleased that there is so much support around the House for the notion of listening to children. However, I should like to be a little more generous than others have been in thanking the Minister for going such a long way and for producing Amendment No. 124, which I find useful.
	There is already much good practice in schools on which to build. My own school—a primary school, including a nursery school—does listen to children and takes their views into account. It does not always go along with them but it listens and, many times, it acts on what the children say.
	In Committee, several noble Lords contributed vigorously to the discussion on the issue of supporting consultation processes within schools. I believe that the Minister has listened. Consultation with children is important. It is enshrined in legislation and, indeed, in the Children Act. I agree with others that the issue of consultation should be included in all legislation and not only in that relating to education. However, I thank the Minister for acting on this issue and I look forward to her response.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is nothing which divides us in wanting to ensure that we bring children closely into consultation on issues within schools. My problem is not with the amendment per se but with the technicalities of doing what the noble Baroness, Lady David, would like us to do. There is a technical problem with the approach. The difficulty concerns the interpretation in law. That is what prompted us to table an amendment to ensure that we take forward in a real spirit of agreement the desire to consult and involve pupils.
	I draw two issues to the attention of noble Lords. First, we want to ensure that schools are able to develop the approach which works for them. As I said in opening, many schools involve pupils but, because of the age of the children, the type of school and the way in which the children have wanted to be involved, they do so in different ways. School councils are a good example of that. I know of school councils which attend governors meetings and those which do not; those which operate with their fellow pupils in different ways; those which meet to discuss matters with teachers and those which discuss matters with only the head teacher. Those are small points, but they concern a different approach.
	I know of schools, of which I have chaired governors, which involve pupils in discussions about anti-bullying strategies and do innovative work, particularly with younger children. We know of schools which involve pupils in important decisions about the future of the school. I refer, for example, to decisions on school uniform, how the school might operate activities, how it orders and buys play equipment, and many other matters. We are trying to allow schools to develop the approach that works for them. That is not because we believe that this is the end of the process, but the beginning.
	It is the responsibility of government to consider the implications of their proposals in terms of the law. The introduction of a broad statutory requirement of this kind could cause difficulties for schools over the meaning and interpretation of the law and could increase the risk of judicial review if pupils felt that they had not been consulted when they should have been on a particular issue. That would either lead—

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I rise in a spirit of genuine inquiry. If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, she stated that the difficulty with a statutory right is what might happen in court. If that is the case, why is not there the same problem in Scotland?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know whether there is the same problem in Scotland. This is the best advice we have in terms of our legal representation and I bring it forward on that basis. I cannot answer for what might happen in Scotland. It may be—I am guessing—that the difference is that the provision is specific about ways in which children are consulted and that thereby that difficulty is avoided. That is precisely what I am trying to avoid, by not saying, "The way to do this is to set up a school council, with this representation with lots of regulation and guidance alongside it", and so forth.
	We are trying to allow schools to develop the model which works for them. That is the approach which we think will work best. We want to take an approach which enables children and young people to be consulted and involved in ways which work best for schools. I reiterate that this is the beginning and not the end of that process.
	The amendment does not help us in the approach we want to take. Therefore, I have the responsibility to raise these issues. We believe that our amendment is more effective. We want to minimise the likelihood of difficulties to schools and to increase the likelihood of schools taking effective action on their own initiative. I reiterate that we have a strong belief that participation can and should take many different forms if it is to fit the particular circumstances in which schools find themselves and is to be effective. Every noble Lord shares the desire to ensure that this is not lip-service but genuine participation by young people and children.
	Therefore, on the basis that we believe Amendment No. 125 carries some serious risks of schools facing legal difficulties and also of less effective action by schools, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to respond to the Minister said. First, I thank very much those who have spoken in favour of my amendment. I had very strong and powerful support. I am extremely grateful for that. I thank the Minister for what she has said, but it was an extremely timid and uncourageous response. I am rather ashamed of the Department for Education and Skills for being so very timid. I hope that she will convey the message to her ministerial colleagues that I think they really are extremely timid and weak. They do not have the courage of their convictions. That is very bad.
	I should dearly like to divide the House, but with so few people in the Chamber and it being after half past ten at night, it would be a fruitless exercise. But I feel very strongly about the matter and am extremely disappointed. In the circumstances, I shall not press my amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
	Schedule 17 [Amendments of Part 5 of Education Act 1997]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 126:
	Page 178, line 27, at end insert—
	"(2B) In the case of maintained nursery schools or of funded nursery schools which are designated as Montessori schools, and where the principal or at least two senior teachers are holders of recognised qualifications from Montessori awarding bodies, the authority, in carrying out its functions under this section, shall do nothing that will require or advise schools or teachers to depart from principles and teaching methods that are appropriate to Montessori education and shall not insist on anything that is inappropriate to Montessori education."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. I make no apology for returning to the subject. I shall not repeat the points I made in Committee, except to remind noble Lords that the Montessori system is an international system of education established, tried and tested for generations and freely chosen in this country by many thousands of parents for their children.
	This is not a fringe activity to be tolerated; it is a significant part of nursery education in the United Kingdom. It deserves proper recognition and status. Indeed, The QCA and the department—which frequently chop and change their ever expanding guidelines for nursery schools—might usefully learn from the consistency and success of Montessori bodies.
	The three amendments have simple objectives which, frankly, I do not think any reasonable government would, or indeed should, resist if they really meant what they said, that they valued Montessori education.
	Amendment No. 126 asks that the judgment of qualified Montessori schools and teachers should not be overridden by public authorities so far as concerns the principles and teaching methods of Montessori education.
	Amendment No. 127 asks that Montessori qualifications—which I remind your Lordships are earned over two years and many hours of practical experience—should be in all respects adequate for all educational purposes in running, managing and teaching in a Montessori school.
	Many teachers and managers now fear they are facing the nonsense of being asked to requalify in a different—and lower level—qualification that is inappropriate to Montessori teaching.
	Do the Government not realise that if we ask would-be Montessori teachers to go through too many qualification hoops we may end up by strangling the Montessori system? If that happens, no Minister in the Government can say they were not warned of that risk.
	Amendment No. 128, which is new, provides that the QCA, in issuing directions to Montessori awarding bodies, should do nothing to require them to depart from teaching and accrediting principles appropriate to Montessori schools and should not require them to use any accreditation standards that are inappropriate to Montessori schools. That is a reasonable amendment that the Government should accept.
	I have read carefully the words of the Minister in Committee. I have also had further representations from Montessori practitioners who have convinced me that the arguments I put in Committee were justified.
	Whatever the Minister may say, or whatever may be said by officials, there is a deep sense of unease in the Montessori world that they are not respected or valued as they might be.
	When I speak to these schools, I find a profound sense of despair settling on professionals as they witness the prospect of yet more regulation, more interference, more hours spent ploughing through paperwork and, in this case, all too often for purposes entirely unconnected with Montessori education.
	The Minister said in Committee:
	"What is at issue is whether all 15 Montessori bodies should separately have qualifications accredited by the QCA as part of the national framework".—[Official Report, 28/5/02; col. 1300.]
	With respect, that is not the case. For the department's information, there are nine Montessori awarding bodies, not 15. Although Montessori bodies have hoped for that in the past, they now accept that it is not possible. They accept that a proliferation of qualifications is undesirable. They are not holding discussions with the QCA on that basis.
	Contrary to what the Minister appeared to believe, they accept that it would not be financially viable to set up a Montessori awarding body. The question is how the system can be organised so as not to damage the integrity of Montessori education but to incorporate its ideals and avoid placing an unnecessary and damaging burden of inappropriate regulation and re-qualification on Montessori trainers, schools and teachers.
	The Minister said in Committee that Montessori qualification was not level 4. That statement has caused great dismay to the Montessori community. It takes issue with the idea that just because a qualification has not been submitted to the QCA for accreditation, it cannot be regarded as level 4. Level 4 qualifications in early years are a recent introduction. Previously, there was only level 3 qualification, the equivalent to national vocational qualification level 3. The Montessori teaching diploma has always been at a higher level than NVQ level 3 and holding it has exempted students from the first year of a variety of courses, including the B.Ed with qualified teaching status. Surely the Minister is not saying that, in the department's view, it does not have that status. That needs to be made clear beyond doubt.
	Perhaps I may suggest a way forward. The Montessori community continues its work of establishing common minimum standards for Montessori training in the United Kingdom. It is also piloting a kite-marking programme for Montessori training. All that is lacking is to ensure that Montessori diploma holders have their qualifications recognised by Ofsted. It believes that the most appropriate route would be to link the Montessori diploma with the Council for Awards in Children's Care and Education certificate of professional development, a qualification in the national framework, the certificate giving license to practise. The certificate in itself may have its limitations but, combined with the practical and theoretical training, including extensive practice-based training, that constitutes the Montessori diploma, that should more than meet the level 3 criteria of the national standards.
	Unlike all of the other bolt-on options, that would not require a Montessori student to backtrack at a lower level over material already covered simply to gain a so-called recognised qualification. I understand that the Montessori bodies would like to adopt that approach from September and that all that they are waiting for is some official blessing from Ofsted and the department. Can the Minister today give that indication and urge Ofsted and the QCA to support that proposal, instead of insisting on tying Montessori education within the straitjacket of an inappropriate and inflexible national framework?
	I hope that in his response the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will accept at least some of the amendments. That would send a powerful signal that he meant what he said to those thousands of dedicated trainers and teachers. If he cannot, I hope that he will undertake to consider the points that I have just made and be prepared to return at Third Reading with a statement as to whether the option that I have sketched out would be acceptable.
	Finally, perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask two other questions. First, will the Minister give a firm assurance that no qualified Montessori teacher, school manager or proprietor will have to re-qualify under the provisions and that, in view of what I have told the House about the high standard of Montessori qualifications, past qualifications will be fully accepted? Great fear and anger is abroad on that point.
	Secondly, if the Minister cares about Montessori, will he instruct his officials to ensure that information and contact details about services provided by the Montessori community are included in government publications? For example, Wanting to Work in Early Years Education, Childcare and Playwork, which was funded by the department, failed to include Montessori. What is more, the good practice guide for early years education, Childcare Quality Improvement and Assurance Practices, includes details of six quality assurance schemes, one of which is still only being piloted, but not the one set up by Montessori Education UK, which has been running for six years. I understand that representations have been made about the matter, with no result as yet. Will the Minister give instructions that Montessori should, in future, be included as another example?
	Against that background, is it any wonder that the Montessori world feels troubled and undervalued? I hope that the Minister can give us better reassurance in response to the amendments and will undertake to follow it up in practice. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I declare an interest as the stepfather of a young lady who is training to be a Montessori teacher. We all have much to gain from going down the route proposed by my noble friend. Montessori education is widely appreciated, respected and used by parents. As we are extending the general coverage of regulation to that sector of education, the Department for Education and Skills should give it proper respect.
	On the other hand, I have always been perplexed and, to some extent, annoyed by the fragmentation of the Montessori world. It is difficult to know exactly what one is getting in a Montessori school. We have never really known about the qualifications for teaching. We have known what the philosophy is, but we have not known what recognised training has been done. Much will be gained from the department's putting pressure on the Montessori world to bring things into a recognised framework. If that is done alongside giving full respect to Montessori principles, it could work well. In other similar professions, that sort of pressure has worked well to bring things together under common regulation. In this case, it would give parents of the pupils concerned confidence in and knowledge of what their children get at a Montessori school.
	Some of the points made by my noble friend have great validity. Those who have taught in and managed Montessori schools for some time should not have to go back and do the equivalent of a PGCE to prove that they can do what they have done for years. There must be some form of migration, through which people who have achieved Montessori qualifications can gain qualifications that will enable them to teach in other nursery schools, without having to begin again with the basics. A spirit of co-operation and respect is needed, and I hope that the Minister will assure that that is what we will get.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I am pleased to follow him. Before dealing with the amendments, I must make it as clear as I can that nothing that the Government are doing or would do—in the Bill or elsewhere—harms or threatens Montessori education in any way. The Government value the contribution of Montessori education and have no wish to see it damaged or altered.
	I shall start with Amendment No. 126. The Bill ensures that providers of early years education, such as Montessori schools, will retain the flexibility to plan learning experiences that are appropriate to the particular needs of the children, families and communities with whom they work. As my noble friend said in Committee, the introduction of a foundation stage has been welcomed almost universally in the sector.
	The curriculum for the foundation stage is not prescriptive in its principles and teaching methods and is already provided appropriately in a range of early education settings, including Montessori. Nothing in the Bill changes or threatens that. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that neither the department nor the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority wish to make the foundation stage curriculum inoperable for any of the practitioners who deliver it.
	I turn to Amendment No. 127, and the recognition of Montessori qualifications. I want to be clear that there is no prospect of the Government imposing inappropriate qualifications on Montessori. I understand that since Committee stage Montessori Education UK has written to QCA and to Ofsted proposing a way forward that involves the awarding body responsible for other childcare qualifications, the Council for Awards in Children's Care and Education—CACHE. QCA is seeking clarification with Montessori, CACHE and Ofsted.
	We are not yet certain that this will prove to be the solution, but it is increasingly clear that accreditation to the national framework will be possible within the scope of the current arrangements in a way that will not in any way compromise Montessori. Therefore we continue to believe that it would not be appropriate to make an exception of any awarding body in primary legislation and that QCA should be allowed to use its technical and professional expertise even-handedly in this as in other cases.
	Although I understand that Amendment No. 128 is also designed to ensure that the special characteristics of Montessori education are respected, I do not believe the amendment is necessary. It primarily addresses the power to direct. The power is designed to safeguard the effective delivery of qualifications and the interests of learners expecting to take qualifications, where there has been a failure or there is a serious risk of failure by the awarding body and where the withdrawal of accreditation would not be viable.
	The power can be exercised only if an awarding body is failing to comply, or is at risk of not complying, with a condition of accreditation which it had agreed to accept. Furthermore, the power to direct, which should be used only as a last resort, is designed to restore compliance with those accreditation conditions. Accreditation is a voluntary process and, while, as I said earlier, there have been discussions between Montessori and QCA about the issue, so far, no Montessori organisation has submitted any qualifications for accreditation.
	Therefore the amendment is seeking to tie QCA's hands in the eventuality that Montessori does so. However, should Montessori submit its qualifications and they meet the conditions necessary for accreditation, then the scope of the power to direct will simply ensure that Montessori continues to meet them.
	I do not believe that Montessori provision needs to be, nor indeed should be, treated as a unique case. Nor do I believe that the regulatory authorities should have their hands tied in such a way for provision of which they have a reasonable understanding, but have not yet had an opportunity to scrutinise closely. Our primary concern must be to protect the interests of learners and to protect credibility in both the educational and qualifications systems. I am confident that, should QCA be given the opportunity, it will work closely with Montessori to ensure that sound qualifications that best serve the needs of learners are the result. I am confident that a clear and satisfactory solution will be found. Noble Lords will understand that I do not believe we should necessarily negotiate it on the Floor of the House.
	I am keeping a watchful eye on the matter and I will of course be in touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. But I hope on the basis of the reassurance I have put on the record and the understanding that we are waiting for the discussions to move forward, and recognising the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am totally puzzled by the response. The noble Baroness has not responded in detail to my suggested way forward. I said that all that was lacking was to ensure that Montessori diploma holders have their qualifications recognised by Ofsted. Is the noble Baroness saying that that is open for submission to Ofsted for recognition? As I said, the Montessori community is continuing its work of establishing common minimum standards for Montessori training in the United Kingdom.
	The Montessori establishment, not the DfES, is responsible for Montessori education. If the Montessori establishment is prepared to submit its diploma holders for recognition by Ofsted, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would tell me whether that is acceptable. It believes that the most appropriate route would be to link the Montessori diploma with the CACHE certificate of professional development. The noble Baroness referred to the CACHE certificate, which is a qualification on the national framework.
	I do not welcome discussions with myself about the matter; I believe they should be taking place with Montessori. The Montessori community is most anxious to retain the integrity of Montessori education. For the people who work within that educational system, satisfying their client group—those who choose Montessori education—that ought to continue and nothing the DfES does should stand in the way of that.
	The Minister began by saying that nothing the DfES intends to do will harm or damage Montessori education in any way. I cannot take that statement at face value because I am not sure that there is not a way of applying the national framework so as to have a harmful effect on Montessori. The Minister also said that there is no prospect of imposing any other qualification on Montessori education. We need to be convinced of that, too.
	I shall have further discussions with the organisation, but the Minister said that no organisation has submitted any qualification whatever for accreditation. However, I want to conclude by repeating the questions I asked earlier. Would it be possible for Ofsted to recognise the value of Montessori diploma-holders and the value that has within the national framework? Is there any chance whatever that the Government have moved forward on that positive suggestion?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I tried to deal with the noble Baroness's points. I presume that Montessori UK is the particular Montessori organisation to which the noble Baroness is referring. There are nine different Montessori organisations and the generic name "Montessori" covers all nine. The particular proposal to which I referred relates to Montessori UK. We have written to the QCA and to Ofsted and they have proposed a way forward. We have great hope that within that proposal there may be steps we can take, but conversations are continuing and I would not like to reach any conclusion on the Floor of the House. That would be inappropriate.
	If the noble Baroness is referring to a different Montessori organisation, perhaps she can give me more details. I would then be happy to respond.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall speak to those in the Montessori community between now and the next stage of the Bill. There was a slightly warmer reception to the amendments today. There was a distinct chill in the air when similar amendments were tabled in Committee. I do detect a slight aversion to Montessori within the department—not on the part of the Minister. I believe that within the department there is a frisson of some sort towards the organisation and, frankly, that is a barrier that we need to break down.
	I believe that this is a most valuable part of nursery provision across the country. It should be recognised as such and we should do what we can to ensure that it remains so. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 128A:
	After Clause 193, insert the following new clause—
	"TRANSPORT FOR PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF 14
	(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport or otherwise as may be necessary to secure the attendance of persons over the age of 14 receiving education or training—
	(a) at schools,
	(b) at any institution maintained or assisted by the authority which provides further education or higher education (or both),
	(c) at any institution within the further education sector,
	(d) pursuant to an order made under section 82 of this Act, at any establishment, or
	(e) at any establishment (not falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d)) which is supported by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training in Wales.
	(2) In considering what arrangements it may be necessary to make for the purpose specified in subsection (1), the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things) to—
	(a) the needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practical to attend a particular establishment to receive education or training if no arrangements were made,
	(b) the need to secure that persons in their area have reasonable opportunities to choose between different establishments at which education or training is provided,
	(c) the distance from the homes or persons in their area of establishments such as are mentioned in subsection (1) at which education and training suitable to their needs is provided,
	(d) the costs of transport to the establishments in question and of any alternative means of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education or training there,
	(e) the age of the person and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which he could reasonably be expected to take,
	(f) to any wish of him, or if the person is under the age of 18 his parents, to be provided with education or training at an establishment in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which he or his parent adheres, and
	(g) any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
	(3) Before determining what arrangements it will make under subsection (1), a local authority shall consult—
	(a) any other local education authority that they consider it appropriate to consult,
	(b) the governing bodies of schools maintained by the authority and of any institutions in the further education sector providing education or training for the people in its area,
	(c) the Learning and Skills Council for England (in the case of local education authorities in England) or the National Council for Education and Training in Wales (in the case of a local education authority in Wales), and
	(d) any other person specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.
	(4) Any transport provided in pursuance of arrangements under subsection (1) shall be provided free of charge.
	(5) A local education authority may pay the whole or any part, as they think fit, of the reasonable travelling expenses of any person receiving education or training at any institution mentioned in subsection (1) for whose transport no arrangements are made under that subsection.
	(6) Arrangements made by a local education authority under subsection (1) shall—
	(a) make provision for persons receiving full-time education or training at any institution within the further education sector which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils of the same age at schools maintained by the local education authority, and
	(b) make provision for persons receiving full-time education at institutions mentioned in subsection (1)(d) which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for persons of the same age with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (persons with learning difficulties)) at schools maintained by a local education authority, or where there are no such arrangements the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for such persons for whom the authority secures the provision of education at any other institution.
	(7) Regulations may require a local education authority to publish, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, such information as may be prescribed in respect to the authority's policy and arrangements relating to the making of provision under this section."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the amendment, which we discussed in Committee, relates to the transport of those over compulsory school age. It is a longstanding issue, particularly with colleges of further education, partly because conditional obligations are already placed on LEAs. Clause 193 and Schedule 19 make it somewhat clearer that there will continue to be obligations on LEAs but they remain conditional.
	It is not explicit that LEAs must be responsible for the provision; it is assumed that colleges will continue to provide via their own access funds. In addition, the provision focuses only on 16 to 19 year-olds and there are problems because those older than 19 need help with transport costs. In addition, with the new 14 to 19 provision, there will also be the issue of the transport of those under 16 who need to get to the colleges and to work-based places.
	In Committee, the Minister responded at some length. We raised the matter at half past midnight and we have done a little better this time—but not much! It was suggested that the amendment was totally inappropriate. The Association of Colleges was not happy with that response. It has asked me to bring it back. It said that the amendment was designed, first, to impose on the LEA an absolute duty to arrange transport for students rather than the conditional duty of Section 509 even if that section is enhanced as envisaged in Schedule 19; secondly, to extend to all adult students the obligations on LEAs which Schedule 19 seeks to create for the 16 to 19 year-olds; thirdly, to strengthen the requirement for equality of treatment regardless of institution attended; and, fourthly, to add a new duty in respect of transport for the 14 to 16 year-olds undergoing vocational or work-based training of the type envisaged under the clauses of the Bill.
	To date, the Government have given no public explanation of how they believe that the new requirements set out in Schedule 19 will strengthen the obligations on LEAs in respect of transport for 16 to 19 year-olds or under what circumstances they might be willing to use their powers of direction, which have never been given under Section 509 or its predecessors despite a virtual withdrawal from the field of 16 to 19 transport by some LEAs.
	The Government have not given any public explanation of why they believe it appropriate to draw a distinction between 16 to 19 year-olds and adults in the obligations they believe reasonable to lay on LEAs or about their thinking on the way in which policies for assistance with transport might assist adult access to continuing education. Equally, they have been silent on the question of how 14 to 16 year-olds will access vocational or work-based learning. Is the duty to provide on the LEA, the learning provider, the parent or no one?
	There are, I think, real problems here. We are anxious to encourage participation on the part of 16 to 19 year-olds. Transport costs can be very considerable for those young people. They can be a major disincentive to participation. While there remains obscurity as to who bears the burden, if the buck can be passed it will be passed between LEAs and colleges and from colleges to parents. That is not satisfactory. A clearer delineation of responsibility needs to be given. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, unless I have missed it, there is no reference to an upper age limit. I assume it to be post-14 education. In speaking to the amendment, the noble Baroness referred to 14 to 19 year-olds.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, there is a problem with some of the young adults, in particular those up to 25.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, secondly, as far as I know—unless the law has changed or is about to change—from 14 to 16 statutory school age transport arrangements are in place which meet the distance from school requirements. I assume that that is subsumed in this discussion.
	Another big issue arises here. The Government go on ad nauseam about inclusiveness. A large number of post-16, non-statutory aged children, in rural areas cannot get to their local tertiary college or further education college to undertake foundation courses, or whatever they might want to do. It is not that they cannot afford the bus fare; for many there is no bus. In large tranches of the country, there is no public transport in villages to take people where they want to go and to bring them home. We know from the No. 10 Policy Unit that millions of pounds are expended almost on a weekly basis on scheme after scheme. If there is to be a policy of inclusiveness, this is a practical policy which would allow those with such an aspiration to continue their education post-16 in some form of tertiary provision. That would apply whether the education was provided in a school sixth form, a tertiary college, a college of further education or, as I have mentioned already, a foundation course in a college of higher education.
	There is an issue here that needs to be considered if a large number of young people are not to be prevented from taking advantage of what is really very basic and fundamental post-16 education.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has brought this amendment back. This has never been a subject which the education department, in any of its previous incarnations, has wanted to address because the potential costs involved in reforming the school transport system are so large. This amendment illustrates quite graphically why they are large. However, the distortions that over the years have developed in the education system as a result of not facing up to this are now reaching the point where they must be dealt with. To have the matter spelt out so clearly and extensively in the amendment is immensely helpful.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will press the amendment to a Division. The Government have sent their troops home and at least we would achieve an adjournment of the House at 11 o'clock. That would be a nominal victory. I have wandered around the House and, unless noble Lords are hiding away in a bar or in someone's private room, they must have left. They are not to be found in any of the public rooms. I encourage the noble Baroness to say that debate until 11 o'clock is enough. An extra hour put on the business tomorrow would not be a great problem for the Chief Whip. I am sure that he would be able to fit in the remaining amendments then.
	I return to the amendment. It raises the whole question of how we should deal with children living in a relatively widely dispersed society, such as the countryside. However, when considering a suitable FE college for 16 year-olds, it could be anywhere. The cost of attending school for 16 to 19 year-olds living in the country can reach as much as £1,000 per year. That is the case if, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, they can even get to a college. That cost really should be taken into account, if for no other reason than that it should be considered when planning the pattern of provision of education for this age group.
	It is seductive to seek to gather all provision into big centres because the unit costs are cheaper, but if transport matters are taken into account, then the total costs and the possible reduction in opportunity might outweigh those reduced unit costs. That consideration should be a part of the decision-making process and public authorities must look with a clear eye at the transport costs they cast on to pupils and their parents.
	I am also delighted to note that the amendment faces up to the need to provide for some of the costs of pupils being able to choose which educational establishments they attend. If it is decided to provide a bus service to one particular FE college—that would follow the pattern of provision made for schools—then young people will be deprived of a great deal of opportunity. FE colleges do not all provide the same range of courses. Young people living in the middle of Hampshire might want to attend college at Eastleigh, Andover or Basingstoke. Some courses might only be available even further afield. It is not a question of finding everything at the local FE provider.
	Many questions have to be asked and some radical thinking will be required. That would go a long way towards improving the provision of transport for pupils of all ages, in that potentially it might improve the position for parents who, for one reason or another, do not have access to free school transport. That may be either because they live too close to the school or because they have chosen a school other than that designated by the local education authority.
	For that reason, I am saddened to see subsection (4) of the amendment which states that,
	"Any transport provided ... shall be provided free of charge".
	That misses the point. At present many children have to pay large sums of money. It would be better and more reasonable to put in place an arrangement whereby children could pay rather less, but at least contribute something. In that way everyone would be better off than they are at the moment.
	Beyond that, I support the amendment. If we do not agree it tonight, I hope that we shall return to the subject frequently and that, over the years, we shall see some movement on it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested that we adjourn at 11 o'clock, but he spoke until five minutes past 11, so that is the end of that proposition. I can go some considerable time past 11. Lest he think that we have no intention of sustaining our commitment to the Bill this evening, I reassure him that I can call up demons from the deep, which will come at any hour of the morning.
	Let us ensure that we concentrate on the amendment. Of course I share entirely the sentiments expressed on all sides of the House that transport for students in further education is an extremely important matter. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that transport cannot be the be-all and end-all for the obvious reason, as she rightly says, that there is no point in offering transport support to students when there are no buses or trains to catch and when they cannot avail themselves of such transport.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be perfect if transport were laid on. I am saying that public transport is often not available even if students could afford the fares.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that merely reinforces my next point that the amendment does not draw a distinction as to which students are to be supported. The mind boggles at the concept of every student at a further education college being provided with subsidised transport. The figures would be astronomically high, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested. It would mean that every other support that one wanted to provide in further education would have to give way to the one priority of transport. Although transport is important, it is not the only factor that deters students from participating in further education.
	A few years ago I knew a student who cycled 12 miles to a Lincolnshire college. There was little in the way of public transport for him to use, so he would have been much better supported in other ways. He came from a poor family with limited access to resources, so buying the materials required for his course was his main problem. He did not have transport problems; he was prepared to get on his bike, starting at 7.30 in the morning and cycling home at night.
	We cannot pretend that transport support would be the panacea for all issues regarding further education. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that transport is an important feature, which is why we are making constructive proposals, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, hinted at the point that it is not clear whether the amendment would take the place of existing provision for students under the age of 16.
	There is a statutory entitlement for such students to be provided with transport. I assure the House that we recognise the obligations of ensuring that such provision also obtains for post-14 students on the new courses who are not attending school but who go to a place of work or training and which may meet the same requirements of being more than three miles from their home. We shall ensure that they get the same support as if they were attending school.
	We want to ensure that additional help is given to students in the 16 to 19 group. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will recognise that the amendment has an unlimited dimension, which makes it impossible to quantify and I shudder to think of the resources that it would require. We intend to develop additional opportunities for support for students in further education in the 16 to 19 group.
	Clause 193 and Schedule 19 are designed to ensure that the needs of students of sixth-form age in further education are met effectively. They require LEAs, colleges and others to work together on developing local policies and delivery. Both have learner support funding to help with this. Clause 193 and Schedule 19 were developed to get LEAs and colleges to work together in developing more effective arrangements where their interests overlap. That is where the independent research recommends that we concentrate our efforts. The research has also shown that a key problem for students has been the lack of information about transport support and services available in their area, and we intend to improve the quality of information provided.
	In addition, there will be a duty on the LEA to ensure that the provision or support as set out in the statement is actually provided. Most importantly, the schedule will help to ensure that no student is prevented from following further education because he or she cannot access or afford transport. Students have an element of choice in the courses that they follow and the institution that they attend—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in terms of whether they might necessarily go to the nearest college when the appropriate course might be at a more distant institution. Students are supported, where necessary, in travelling to courses beyond their local area. LEAs take account of the costs involved and any alternatives, such as residential provision or other modes of transport where these would be more effective.
	The overall effects of these requirements would be considerably to strengthen the obligation on LEAs in respect of transport for 16 to 19 year-olds. If a further education transport policy was completely ineffectual, the Secretary of State could use her powers of direction.
	Most transport support for students over 19 is provided by learning and skills council funded colleges and by other institutions, rather than by LEAs. So we have to address ourselves more widely than issues relating to LEAs.
	We are currently reviewing arrangements for funding adult learners. The review will include transport as part of the range of support available for adults in a variety of learning contexts. We shall consider whether and what changes are necessary to transport arrangements for adults when this work is completed. We should not wish to change arrangements in a piecemeal fashion.
	I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, an assurance that we are mindful of the needs of older students. She is right to refer to them in her amendment. However, she will recognise that the way in which the amendment is drafted lays an unconfined obligation on the Government of staggering proportions in terms of public cost.
	I hope that my response will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The amendment, depending on how it is intended to operate, would either create financial commitments and confusion of responsibilities for students of 19 and over, or a duplication of requirements and confusion for students between 15 and 19, and it is not compatible with the work that is currently in progress for reviewing student support for older students.
	I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall continue to monitor the effects of arrangements for students of all ages. It is not that we are not very much seized of the fact that transport is an important dimension on restricting access to further education and of the fact that it needs to be tackled. But this amendment goes further than we are able to accept. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the objectives that we have in common, and the fact that the Government are following a strategy which will improve the position, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I must say that it was quite tempting to press the amendment and to see whether we were in fact keeping a House. However, I think that many of us would like to see the back of the Bill rather than to pursue it again tomorrow.
	I thank the Minister for his remarks, which clarify the position. One or two questions remain to be pursued a little further. For example, he spoke about LEAs and colleges working together to provide a more effective transport system for 16 to 19 year-olds. There are problems, particularly in rural areas, where no transport is available. I very much hope that if the yellow bus school transport gets off the ground and develops further, we shall see it being used across different forms of educational provision; it might be the most suitable.
	Also, while there is clearly an obligation for 14 to 16 year-olds who are going to work-based learning, they could have problems accessing that work-based learning. Some thought may have to be given to that.
	We shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 129:
	After Clause 195, insert the following new clause—
	"DRUGS AND ALCOHOL POLICIES
	(1) The governors of every maintained school shall determine the drugs and alcohol policy for that school.
	(2) A school's drugs and alcohol policy shall provide that where a head teacher takes disciplinary action against a pupil under the terms of the school's drugs and alcohol policy, the parent of the pupil concerned may appeal to that school's governing body.
	(3) No appeal shall be made under subsection (2) save on procedural grounds.
	(4) On such an appeal, the governing body may—
	(a) confirm the head teacher's action,
	(b) in the event of a procedural error on the part of the head teacher, invite the disciplinary case to be heard again, or
	(c) direct the head teacher to take such other action as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.
	(5) The head teacher shall comply with any directions of the governing body given under subsection (4)(b) or (c).
	(6) The governing body shall notify the appellant and the head teacher in writing of their decision on such an appeal."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment returns to drugs policy. It is designed to support those schools that are battling against the dreaded scourge of drug and alcohol abuse. The Government should do everything possible to endorse and support the incredibly difficult work of head teachers who are battling with this issue.
	There is a great deal of anxiety, pain and anguish ahead of the point at which someone is excluded from school. I am not talking about frivolous exclusions. Where that happens, the merits of the decision should be supported. If there have been procedural breaches on the way and the decision has to be considered null and void on procedural grounds, rather than the case simply being thrown out and a serious drug and/or alcohol abuser returning to school, undermining the authority of the head, there should be an opportunity to reconsider the case.
	Whichever Minister responded in Committee—I do not remember which—asked why we should make an exception for drug and alcohol abuse. What about violence? I am prepared to table an amendment to include violence. We have an excess of streetwise young people who are making life hell for some schools, particularly for teachers and head teachers. It is our duty to do as much as we can to support those schools that are really battling and trying to address the problem. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that drug and alcohol problems in schools are very important. I do not intend to repeat everything that I said in Committee, particularly in view of the lateness of the hour. I assure the noble Baroness that we are as concerned as she is to address problems of drug and alcohol misuse. That is why we have made it crystal clear that they have no place in our schools and we have spelt out a number of new measures to tackle the problem, including supporting a policy of zero tolerance for those caught supplying drugs within the school gates.
	However, we do not believe that the amendment would help achieve our aims. We know from Ofsted that schools are already complying with current guidance to have in place drug education and drug-related incident policies agreed by governors and developed in consultation with staff, parents, pupils and police. These policies should include a clear message that the school does not tolerate the possession or use of unauthorised drugs and that such incidents will be dealt with promptly and firmly. I remain convinced that existing exclusion procedures are adequate to the task of dealing with disciplinary action taken in respect of drug and alcohol incidents.
	We should continue to have truly independent appeals panels. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was a Minister, she defended the principle of an independent appeal for parents. I support her in that view. That is one reason why I am unable to support the amendment. What appeals panels do is of fundamental importance, not least because the first thing that they consider is whether a pupil is guilty of the offence with which he/she is charged. Because the amendment would allow appeals only on procedural grounds, it would deny the opportunity for an appeal on the fundamental ground that the pupil was not guilty of what he was charged with. That cannot be right.
	Appeals panels must be free to make their own decision in the light of all the facts of the case, taking on board government guidance. The draft revised guidance on exclusions makes it clear that we would not expect an independent appeals panel to reinstate a child excluded for the supply of an illegal drug or the severe examples of misuse of an illegal drug.
	Furthermore, by using the words "disciplinary action" and making no reference to exclusions in the amendment, the noble Baroness is in danger of creating enhanced rights of appeal for particular categories of pupils in breach of a school's behaviour and discipline policies. Currently, discipline committees review only the use of exclusions within school, not other forms of disciplinary action, where there is no right of appeal. I do not think that pupils disciplined for drugs and alcohol offences should have greater rights than those disciplined for other reasons, which this amendment would create.
	We have implemented a wide range of practical measures to support schools and education authorities in building pupils' social and emotional competence and improving behaviour in schools. We believe that this will have a further positive effect in reducing both drug-related incidents in school and exclusions. As noble Lords will be aware, the £66 million made available through the Budget is linked to the national strategy to tackle street crime. It also supports our long-term strategy on behaviour improvement, based on the excellent practice already in place.
	In the light of all I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are examples of the reinstatement of such people in our schools, which does undermine the authority of the head. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, even after my warning, used the argument of categories against my amendment. I did say that if she would like to name the categories, I would table an amendment at the next stage to include them. Violence, which she named at the previous stage, is certainly one of them. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 129) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 30.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 130:
	Before Clause 196, insert the following new clause—
	"CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS
	( ) Notwithstanding any other provision, no public authority shall make unreasonable demands of any governing body or head teacher of any school or nursery school to seek personal information from its staff or from visitors to the school, or make any unreasonable demands of any employee of a school or any visitor to a school, or the premises where the school or nursery school is situated, in the process of conducting checks for the purposes of child protection.
	( ) In making such checks a public authority or school shall only request such information as is directly relevant to assessing the risk of an offence against children or which is essential for the purposes of identifying a particular individual."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, although this amendment was spoken to earlier, I was not allowed, under the rules, to respond. I wish to do so now. In her response, the Minister made much of List 99, but that list was never a problem for schools. It was a quick, swift and immediate check. The name and the relevant information were submitted and there was no delay in getting back information about List 99. That list has now been subsumed with all of the other checks and we now have unbelievable bureaucracy, which is causing delay. The Minister touched on delay but said very little about the real problems associated with it, or about the timescale under which the particular targets that were set out in the documents would be achieved.
	The Minister gave no response whatever in regard to the personal information required—bank account numbers, sort code numbers and other specific information—and she did not explain why it was essential to have that information. Only additional information appears on the form. Some say that it is voluntary and is additional only to help speed up the checks, but at least some county councils state that all sections of the form have to be answered. However, the form asks for a passport, which establishes identity.
	The Minister said that bank account details were necessary to establish identity. They cannot possibly be. A passport, driving licence and birth certificate are all asked for on the form and all of them will confirm identity. Will the Minister give specific reasons why it is important to have details of one's bank account number, sort code number and one's mother's maiden name? That is interesting because the mother's maiden name is given to banks by many people in this country for security purposes. What possible use can that be to the CRB?
	Again, when a person has been a governor for, say, two or three terms and he lives in the village and knows the school, and when it is known that CRB checks will be carried out on that person when he becomes a governor for, say, the third, fourth of fifth time, why is it necessary to carry out the checks again when he is re-elected or reappointed? I have not received, but should like to have, satisfactory answers to those questions. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is important that, when we ask for a great deal of information from people who mostly have nothing whatever to declare, we restrict it to information which is absolutely necessary. I believe it is accepted that one goes through enough checks to establish one's identity when applying for a passport, and it should not be necessary for a great deal of intrusive and personal information to be included in that. One wonders what is going on when this Government wish to give all and sundry access to communications data. It seems that this is another example of the tendency to pry as closely as possible into people's lives at the slightest excuse. I believe that that should be discouraged.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall be brief. I believed that I had dealt with all these issues. We are, of course, discussing the protection of children. As I indicated, the Criminal Records Bureau is clear that the information requested on the application form is needed in order to establish the applicant's identity beyond doubt. Therefore, it is necessary. The information in question is highly sensitive. We need to be absolutely certain that it is not issued to the wrong person and that a person cannot obtain a disclosure by using another person's identity. Therefore, the information is requested for that purpose—a purpose that I consider to be important because of the issue with which we are dealing. That is my understanding and I am very happy to reiterate it.
	I have made it clear and explained that the Criminal Records Bureau has genuine difficulties. I have not attempted to make any apologies for that beyond saying that the bureau is working as hard as it can to ensure that these processes are resolved satisfactorily so that it can do its job effectively. I do not have information on the exact timetables because I am not responsible for the Criminal Records Bureau. I shall be very happy to ask for that information from my colleagues and to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with the details. But, as I indicated, we have put arrangements in place to ensure as far as possible that schools are able to continue with their work and are not adversely affected.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer is still deficient. The noble Baroness continues to say that it is important to prove the identity of the person for whom the application is being made. A passport will give that information, as will a driving licence and a birth certificate. May I have a straight answer as to why the sort code, bank account name, account number and mother's maiden name are required in order to prove identity?

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 130) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 30.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 199 [Application of Part 5 of Education Act 1996 to nursery education]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 131:
	Leave out Clause 199.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an important amendment. Section 410 of the 1996 Act exempts nursery schools from the provisions of Part 5 of that Act. If the noble Baroness will answer this question, not having answered my previous one, we shall hear the reason why. Part 5 of that Act comprises many pages, from which I shall read a small selection, remembering that we are discussing nursery schools, not mainstream schools, such as primary and secondary schools, or even further education.
	It covers subjects such as dealing with the national curriculum, core subjects and foundation subjects, development work and experiments, procedure for making certain orders and regulations, programmes for research, general functions of local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers in relation to curriculum, agreed syllabuses of religious education, constitution of advisory councils, functions of advisory councils, advisory councils: supplementary provisions, duty to constitute new standing advisory councils, religious education: access to meetings and documents, no requirement of attendance at Sunday schools, courses leading to external qualifications, obligation to enter pupils for public examinations, sex education and the manner of provision, sex education: statement of policy, exemptions from sex education, politics and indoctrination, duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues, provision of information, complaints and enforcement, county voluntary and maintained special schools. I could go on and on.
	There must be a good reason why Part 5 of that Act should be applied to nursery schools. I have already spoken in support of nursery schools, which are absolutely overwhelmed and burdened with new requirements to provide information, to respond to documents and to provide information for inspection. The whole of Part 5 is now to apply to nursery schools. It would be useful to know why. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, Clause 199 appears to have some strange implications. Collective worship would appear to become compulsory in nursery schools. They will have to make statements of sex education policy. Has that really been considered in detail? I can understand why some provisions of Part 5 now have to be applied to nursery schools, or the foundation stage of the curriculum could not work correctly. But I really do not understand why the Government want to bring those other aspects of school education into nursery schools.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, Clause 199 repeals Section 410 of the Education Act 1996, which provides that Part 5 of that Act does not apply to nursery schools or nursery classes. Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 5 deal with the national curriculum, which is repealed and re-enacted by the Bill.
	In the 1996 Act, the national curriculum was for children from compulsory school age. The introduction of the foundation stage in the Bill extends the national curriculum to include children below compulsory school age, including those in nursery schools and nursery classes. Because we are repealing and re-enacting the relevant parts of Part 5 of the 1996 Act, we in any case need to repeal Section 410 of the 1996 Act. But we do not want to re-enact the blanket exclusion that it created, because we want to enable the foundation stage as part of the national curriculum to apply to those settings.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the foundation stage has been warmly welcomed by those working in early education settings including nursery classes and nursery schools. During the year in which I have been a Minister, I have never heard someone in a primary school or nursery setting say anything other than how much they value the foundation stage. I should again reassure noble Lords that there are no plans to change the flexible and effective approach to early learning set out in the joint DfES and QCA publication, Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage.
	It is important that early learning experiences are of good quality and contribute positively to learning. The foundation stage guidance sets out the core principles for that. It explains that learning activities should be appropriate to the age and stage of development of the children in the early years setting. The guidance emphasises the crucial role of the early years practitioner in using well planned play as a key way in which children will learn with enjoyment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with that.
	The issue of collective worship is a good example of what we are discussing. Because of Section 410 of the 1996 Act, the collective worship provision in Chapter III of Part V did not apply to a nursery class at a primary school. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 does not prevent the provisions from applying. The effect of Section 70 of that Act is that children in a nursery class at a primary school must take part in the act of collective worship, although children at a maintained nursery school do not have to. That has been the law since 1998. It might appear anomalous, but children in a nursery class should not be treated differently from the rest of the school, of which they are a key part. We have not changed that position with this Bill.
	I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has ignored all the other aspects of Part V of the 1996 Act. There is a mass of provisions in Part V, and all that this Bill states is that the exemption from Part V shall cease to have effect. So Part V has an effect on nursery schools. I read out a selected list of the things that I believe do not apply to nursery schools. It would be useful to know what elements of Part V will now apply.
	The Minister referred to the foundation stage. I am not against the foundation stage. With a little drafting experience, one could find a way of putting in the Bill a provision for producing a foundation stage for children of nursery school age without taking the whole of Part V and applying it to nursery education.
	How much of this is compulsory? Nursery school children are not of compulsory school age. Are we lowering the age of compulsory schooling to include nursery school children? Is it now the case that children who attend nursery school must enjoy—or endure, depending on the parents and the children—compulsory provision? It would be helpful to know what is compulsory and how much of Part V will apply to nursery education.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I want again to offer my reassurances that we do not intend to change the way in which nursery education is provided, either by not re-enacting Section 410 or through the terms of Clause 152 of this Bill. I know that many noble Lords are concerned about the potential that children will be pushed into an over-formal approach to learning when they are too young, particularly if they are in a primary school environment.
	Clause 152 is simply about definitions, not about the institutions in which children learn. Nor does it change the curriculum in respect of which the guidance on the foundation stage has been so well received. Sex education, of course, applies to secondary schools and not to the provision that we are describing here. Nursery education has always been a subset of the definition of primary education. We have tried to make the distinctive nature of that stage much clearer, particularly, for example, the fact that it is normally provided part-time. Noble Lords will be aware that the existing definitions refer to full-time education for pupils below the age of ten and a half.
	The Bill introduces a more distinct definition of nursery education that recognises the practice in nursery schools of offering children either a morning or an afternoon session and the fact that the nursery phase of primary education is intended for children between the age of two and compulsory school age. We seek to develop legislation to reflect practice. We also intend to introduce greater clarity and distinctiveness to legislation that bears on that important phase of children's education and development.
	We are concerned with the foundation stage and with making sure that we have enacted in legislation what we are doing and what we consider to be important for the children. We are not attempting to provide an over-formal curriculum or bringing in extraneous matters. We are concerned with the issues that I have raised. If I have been unable to clarify things for the noble Baroness, I am, as she is aware, always willing to write to her and make sure that I lay things out in a manner that will make it easier for her to understand. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would like to take up the noble Baroness's offer to write to me. She has not addressed the compulsory nature of the provisions. My understanding is that Section 4(10) of Part 5 of the 1996 Act applies to all mainstream education but that nursery education is exempt. The Bill regards that exemption as ceasing to have effect. Therefore, Part 5 applies to nursery education. If the only effect of Section 4(10) was to allow for the introduction of a foundation stage for nursery education, I cannot see why there could not have been a clause in the Bill to provide a foundation course for nursery education and to link it with some of the provisions in Clauses 74, 75 and 76.
	This seems a strange way to do it. Many aspects of Part 5 of the 1996 Act bear no relationship to nursery education. It does not even contain a foundation curriculum. That would have to be inserted into Part 5 to have the effect of which the noble Baroness speaks. The provision is unsatisfactory and I hope that a letter will clear the air for me and clarify the points on which I have concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 132:
	After Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
	"NUISANCE OR DISTURBANCE OFF EDUCATIONAL PREMISES
	Where a pupil or pupils of a foundation or voluntary aided school, who are clearly identifiable as being pupils of that school, are guilty of committing an offence, or cause nuisance or disturbance in a public place or behave in a manner offensive to a reasonable member of the public, the head teacher of the school shall have full authority to apply the disciplinary code of the school to the pupil or pupils, even if the offence, nuisance or disturbance is committed outside school premises or outside school hours."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment addresses an important issue for maintained schools. It allows the head teacher to take disciplinary action against any pupil or pupils who have committed an offence, or caused a nuisance in a public place, if the child can be identified as being of a particular school.
	I know I went to school a million years ago, but it was commonplace that if you brought your school into disrepute outside the school by behaving badly, when you arrived the next morning the school would take disciplinary action against you. Not only would disciplinary action be taken at home but the school also would take a dim view.
	We are constantly wringing our hands in this Chamber about what we are going to do about disaffected youth and increasing incidents of poor behaviour in the classroom. The amendment gives us the opportunity of another shot in the armoury for schools to deal with such problems. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, a head teacher of any maintained school, including foundation or voluntary aided schools may already—as the noble Baroness referred to from her own experience as a young person—take disciplinary action against a pupil for behaviour that occurs outside school premises if there is a clear link between the misconduct in question and the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of the school's pupils.
	This will be a matter of judgment for the head teacher, who will take into account the likely impact of the misconduct on the life of the school. The same discretion also applies where the incident takes place on the school's premises outside school hours. To that extent the amendment is unnecessary.
	The revised draft guidance on school exclusions makes it clear that where a school-related incident is also subject to a police investigation which may result in criminal prosecution proceedings, the head teacher may exclude the pupil in question. In those circumstances, before excluding, the head teacher must take into account a number of factors: first, the seriousness of the allegation made against the pupil by another pupil or member of staff at the school; secondly, whether the allegation may result in criminal proceedings being brought; and finally whether, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings, the pupil's presence in school is likely to have an adverse effect on the complainant and other potential witnesses and on the promotion of good order and discipline generally.
	It is important that there are checks on the head teacher's discretion as it would be entirely inappropriate for the head teacher to take such action unless he or she was satisfied of the seriousness of the impact of the alleged offence on the school.
	Regardless of whether criminal proceedings result, in all cases where a pupil's action was entirely unconnected with the school, we consider it to be both undesirable and unreasonable to expect the head teacher to take disciplinary action.
	Generally speaking, at times when a school does not have charge of its pupils outside school hours and off the school premises, it will not have a general duty either to its pupils or anyone else to police pupils' activities. That is rightly principally the duty of the children's parents and, where criminal offences are concerned, the police.
	I would be cautious about raising expectations that a school should continue to have general disciplinary responsibility for a pupil when he is not within the school's control other than in the limited circumstances identified by the Court of Appeal in the Bradford Smart case; for example, if it were reasonable for a teacher to intervene if he saw one pupil attacking another near the school gates. It will also clearly extend further afield if the pupils are on a school trip, educational, recreational or sporting.
	However, there should be no opportunity for parents in particular to rely on a school to take action to avoid their own responsibility for their child's discipline. Furthermore, where there are already laws and law enforcers in existence to deal with anti-social behaviour in public, it does not seem necessary also to make pupils, already subject to those laws, the responsibility of the school in the circumstances where the school would not otherwise be involved. If a school were to be expected to take action in such circumstances, it would also be a burden and impractical for it to investigate a complaint of misbehaviour, irrespective of where or when it was alleged to have occurred.
	Perhaps I may repeat the point with which I began. The head teacher of any maintained school may already take disciplinary action against a pupil for behaviour that occurs outside the school premises if there is a clear link between the misconduct in question and the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of a school's pupils.
	For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand how one establishes a clear link. Let me give two examples. The first is of a child in school uniform away from the school's buildings being very rude to an old person: not sufficiently rude as to require a policeman to take criminal charges against a child. Would the fact that the child was recognisable as a child of that school be a link with the school? The second example is of a child out of uniform but identifiable as belonging to a particular school behaving in a similar way and causing a nuisance or disturbance, but which fell short of being a criminal offence but was nevertheless regarded as a real nuisance. I am not sure what the Minister means by establishing a link.
	The Minister referred to parents and I have to agree with her on one point. She said that parents have a responsibility, but, sadly, many parents either collude with their children or have no interest in their children's behaviour. Their children are out at all hours and are committing offences and causing nuisance. The parents turn a blind eye to all of that. Again, if the school is being bought into disrepute, and if the school takes that seriously, is it not understandable that the school would want to consider excluding such a child or at least consider the situation the following day in school? The complainant might be the old lady who was being harassed by a child, so should not the school take that seriously and take action?
	The noble Baroness was speaking about the serious end of behaviour, but I am talking about the community nuisance, disturbance, offensive behaviour which falls short of criminal behaviour. If it is criminal behaviour, there is another remedy, but if it is not, the school and the parents should be allowed to act. The Minister seems to believe that a link should be established, but I do not know what a link is. It would be helpful to know whether in the examples I have given a link would be established and in what way.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I mean the noble Baroness no disrespect by not responding. It is in part through my understanding of the procedures of the House on Report.
	I sought to indicate that the head teacher can indeed do the things for which the noble Baroness asks. It is for the head teacher to consider the likely impact on the life of the school. If the head teacher believes that the attitude and behaviour of a pupil, perhaps on his way home from school wearing the school uniform, was relevant to that consideration he or she could take disciplinary action.
	Schools are not acting in loco parentis in that context. On a Saturday or Sunday the school is closed and the teachers are nowhere near it. The child is wearing jeans and a T-shirt and is operating well within the jurisdiction of the parent but not of the school. I do not believe that it is the job of our schools to be entirely responsible for the behaviour of the children. But where the head teacher believes there to be a link—it is a matter of discretion—the head teacher can act.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that. There is considerable discretion for the school. The link is a matter for the head teacher to decide and that head teacher would be supported. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 20 [Nuisance or disturbance on educational premises]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Page 189, line 8, at end insert—
	"(ac) any nursery school"

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, under Schedule 20 schools have a protection against a person who without authority causes or permits nuisance or disturbance to the annoyance of persons who lawfully use the premises. I see no reason why nursery schools should not be included.
	Section 547 of the Education Act 1996 is amended by Schedule 20 of the Bill. Section 547 relates to nuisance or disturbance on educational premises caused by any person who is present without authority. Such persons would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine. But this protection does not appear to be enjoyed by nursery schools.
	I have taken the trouble to rewrite Section 547 with all the amendments set out in Schedule 20. Where all other schools are named, it makes eminent sense to include nursery schools. I note that there is a reference to grant-maintained schools although they do not exist. That does not appear to have been amended. I hope that the Minister will agree that if other schools are protected from this kind of unruly, unattractive and in some cases threatening behaviour, a nursery school is as deserving of protection as a primary school, secondary school, or any other school. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in this part of the Bill, we are extending the existing provisions in Section 547 of the Education Act 1996 regarding nuisance or disturbance on educational premises. Maintained nursery schools are already covered by the existing provisions and independent schools providing nursery education will be included under Schedule 20. We are extending these provisions to independent schools and to all institutions in the further education sector in direct response to their requests to do so.
	We have not been pressed to extend the provisions to the private nursery sector. It is not our intention to extend the offence to a wider range of early years day care provision in the private sector. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment to extend the provision to all nursery schools is necessary.
	However, I understand the point about extending the provision to private nursery schools. I should be willing to take the matter forward for further consideration. There are some major issues to be resolved. There would need to be a clear definition of a private nursery school on which to base an amendment so that the police and courts were able to distinguish between those private establishments providing nursery education and, for example, those simply providing day care facilities. No such definition exists. We do not think it reasonable to extend the offence to day care provision mainly because it includes a wide range of provision—much wider than private nursery schools offering education. We shall want to consult with the police, who will be affected by any changes, and, most importantly, the private nursery sector.
	On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If she is looking for me to have those discussions with the private nursery sector, I am more than happy to do so.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is odd that although a number of schools are listed, nursery schools are not mentioned. For example, voluntary-aided, foundation and special schools are listed. I shall not read out the whole of new Section 547 as amended by Schedule 20, but certainly reference is made to independent schools and so forth.
	A mention of nursery schools would be extremely helpful here. The nursery school sector thinks that it has been left out of these provisions. It would be helpful to know whether nursery schools have been subsumed. In new subsection (2A) there is a reference to,
	"provided by a local education authority under section 508".
	I do not have that section to hand. Would nursery schools be encompassed within that section of the Act?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Baroness to clarify that point. I have checked it, but at this hour I simply cannot recall the specific reference. Nursery schools are already covered by the existing provisions, but I shall write to the noble Baroness to explain precisely where.
	I take the point made by the noble Baroness that if the nursery school sector is unclear about the position, then we need to rectify that. I can confirm that it is covered under the provisions of the Bill, as we would wish it to be.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be helpful to receive confirmation that the sector is covered. I should like to respond to those who have contacted me with a proper reference, quoting the chapter and verse of the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 136:
	Before Clause 204, insert the following new clause—
	"SAFEGUARDING PROVISION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
	Nothing shall be done under this Act to the disadvantage of any provision in respect of special educational needs under this or any other enactment."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not move this amendment. Although the Government have brought forward welcome amendments, I still believe that there is a lacuna in the Bill with regard to the protection of children with special educational needs. I am discussing the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who in turn is in discussions with the department. We seek rather more watertight protection for children with special educational needs. As I have said, I shall not move the amendment today and I shall return to the matter at Third Reading.

[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
	Clause 206 [General interpretation]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 137:
	Page 126, line 2, after "Part" insert "section (Duties of LEAs and governing bodies in relation to welfare of children)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 126, line 2, after "Part" insert "section (Consultation with pupils)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 210 [Commencement]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 127, line 23, after "126" insert "and Schedule 11"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 139 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141. Amendment No. 139 is entirely technical.
	Schedule 11 was omitted from the commencement provision of the Bill. Without this amendment, the procedure for commencing the Bill would be in some doubt. The amendment simply corrects that omission.
	Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 are also technical, consequential amendments. They correct cross-references which due to repeals in the Bill would become meaningless on its commencement. Under Amendment No. 140, Schedule 11 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is to be repealed. So, regulations under paragraph 6 of that schedule are to be replaced by regulations under Clause 18 of the Bill. In Amendment No. 141, Section 44 of the 1998 Act is to be repealed and replaced, with amendments, by Clause 33 of the Bill.
	The amendments ensure that references in existing legislation to provisions which will be repealed by this Bill are substituted by references to their replacement provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 21 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 140 and 141:
	Page 206, line 26, at end insert—
	"100A In section 50 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (effect of financial delegation), in subsection (5) for the words from "under paragraph 6" onwards there is substituted "under section 18 of the Education Act 2002 (or, in the case of temporary governors of a new school, regulations under section 33(5) of that Act).""
	Page 207, line 2, at end insert—
	"104A In section 72 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (further provisions relating to new schools), in subsection (3)(a) for "section 44" there is substituted "section 33 of the Education Act 2002"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 22 [Repeals]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 142:
	Page 216, line 46, column 2, leave out "Section 86(6)" and insert—
	"Section 86(3)(b) and (6).
	Section 91."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	House adjourned at nineteen minutes past midnight.